AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Milap Chand Jain, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
Counsel for the petitioner did not challenge conviction of the petitioner. He however urged that the sentence awarded is severe. The petitioner has been sentenced to nine months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs 200/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months rigorous imprisonment for the offence u/s 3/7, Essential Commodities Act. Charge against the petitioner is that he did not sell 11 quintals of Sugar which was supplied to him for distribution. Counsel for the petitioner urged that he was a new man and he has led evidence that sugar was distributed but because of inimical relations number of witnesses have been produced to state that sugar was not distributed. He submitted that in this view of the matter the sentence may be reduced. In may opinion ends of justice would de served if the sentence is reduced to three months rigorous imprisonment and the sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs. 1000/-.
Accordingly, this revision petition is is partly allowed. The conviction of the petitioner is maintained and the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to three months rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months rigorous imprisonment.