Manoka Majhi vs The State of West Bengal

Mukul Gopal Mukherjee, J.—The present revisional application is directed against an order of conviction u/s 7(1)(a) (II) of the Essential Commodities Act and sentence of R.I. for three months and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default further R.I. for fifteen days passed by the learned Judge, Special Court (Essential Commodities Act) Hooghly, in Special Court Case No. 3/86. The prosecution case, inter alia, is that the constables of Howrah G.R.P./DEB found the accused-petitioner carrying 40 Kgs. of boiled rice in a railway compartment of a down Tarakeswar-Howrah local and that on demand she failed to show any permit or licence or authority for carrying such rice. By our order dated 20.2.91. We looked up provisions of law and were satisfied that even though a minimum sentence was provided by the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, there not being any provision in the Statute, itself negating the application of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, which was a later Act in respect of the first offenders, it was a fit case where we could exercise our discretion to release the accused on probation of good conduct u/s 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, provided however, we get a favourable report from the Probation Officers, Dist. Hooghly at chinsurah. We directed the Probation Officer, to cause an enquiry as regards the whereabouts of the petitioner, her occupation, character and antecedents so as to assess the feasibility of her being released on probation for good conduct.

The probation Officer has caused an enquiry pursuant to our direction and submitted a report. The report is dated 30.3.91. We are satisfied from the said report that the petitioner is now dealing in vegetables in a particular market at Serampore, where she is earning about Rs. 15/-per day and she has given up trading in any rice in contravention of the provision of the Essential commodities Act and the statutory control order. The petitioner has as many as seven daughters and one son and the son is unemployed. Her husband is a khalasi in the Railways, who is rather indifferent to the family and is a drunkard. According to the report of the Probation Officer, the family members are illiterate and socially and economically downtrodden and the only means of a vocation for the family besides the husband''s income, is the income of this lady which she obtains now is by way of selling vegetables in the market at Serampore. We have seen the recommendation of the Probation Officer as also his prognosis. We are satisfied on record that it is a fit case where the petitioner can be released on probation u/s 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

We accordingly, set aside the sentence and direct the learned Trial Court to release the petitioner on probation for good conduct u/s 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on the accused-petitioner furnishing proper bonds. The supervision order should also be passed by the learned Special Court Judge after hearing the Probation Officer, Sri Prabir Mukherjee who is Probation Officer II, Hooghly.

Let a copy of the Probation Officer''s report be kept in this Court and the original report be sent back along with the records to the court below.

We make it clear that in case bond is not furnished within such time as may be fixed by the court below, the petitioner is to undergo sentence as originally imposed by the Trial Court.

The revision application stands disposed of accordingly.

Let a xerox copy of this order be made available to the learned Advocate for petitioner on his applying for an urgent certified copy of the same.

G.R. Bhattacharjee, J.

I agree.