LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a person convicted under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 can be granted probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, despite a minimum sentence prescribed in the Essential Commodities Act.
CASE TYPE: Criminal Law
Case Name: Tarak Nath Keshari vs. State of West Bengal
[Judgment Date]: May 10, 2023
Can a decades-old conviction under the Essential Commodities Act still result in imprisonment, or can the courts consider the passage of time and the specific circumstances of the case? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, focusing on a case that had been ongoing for over three decades. The core issue revolved around whether the benefit of probation could be extended to an individual convicted under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, despite the existence of a minimum sentence provision. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, with Justice Rajesh Bindal authoring the opinion.
Case Background
The case originated from an inspection of the appellant’s grocery shop on August 20, 1985. During this inspection, authorities found that the stock of mustard oil and vegetable oil exceeded the permissible limits, violating the West Bengal Pulses, Edible Oil (Dealers Licensing) Order, 1978. Consequently, the appellant was charged under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
The Trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to six months of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 500. The seized oil was also forfeited to the State. The High Court at Calcutta upheld the conviction but reduced the imprisonment to three months, while maintaining the fine. The matter eventually reached the Supreme Court.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| August 20, 1985 | Inspection of the appellant’s grocery shop; excess stock of mustard and vegetable oil found. |
| July 29, 1986 | Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. |
| July 4, 2017 | High Court at Calcutta upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence. |
| September 7, 2018 | Supreme Court issued notice in the appeal, restricted to the question of imposition of fine. |
| May 10, 2023 | Supreme Court disposed of the appeal, granting probation to the appellant. |
Course of Proceedings
The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, sentencing him to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500, with forfeiture of the seized oil. The High Court at Calcutta, in appeal, upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to three months of rigorous imprisonment while maintaining the fine. The Supreme Court issued notice in the appeal restricted to the question of imposition of fine in lieu of or in addition to sentence.
Legal Framework
The core legal provisions in this case are:
- Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955: This section prescribes penalties for contravening orders made under Section 3 of the Act. It states, “in the case of any other order, with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.” It also includes a proviso stating that “the court may, for any adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than three months.”
- Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958: This section empowers courts to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct. It states, “When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the court by which the person is found guilty is of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, it is expedient to release him on probation of good conduct, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment direct that he be released on his entering into a bond…”
Arguments
The appellant’s counsel argued that the incident occurred in 1985, and over 37 years had passed. Although the trial concluded within a year, the matter remained pending in the High Court for over 31 years. The appellant remained on bail throughout. Given these circumstances, the counsel requested that the imprisonment be set aside and a fine be imposed instead.
The State’s counsel acknowledged the long passage of time but emphasized that two courts had found the appellant guilty. They pointed out that Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, prescribes a minimum punishment of three months. However, they did not dispute that the proviso allows for a lesser sentence for ‘special’ and ‘adequate’ reasons.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s Submission |
|
| State’s Submission |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues, but the core issue revolved around whether the appellant could be granted probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, despite the minimum sentence prescribed under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the appellant can be granted probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, despite the minimum sentence under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. | The Court held that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, despite the minimum sentence provided under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The Court reasoned that the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, being a later enactment, would prevail. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was considered |
|---|---|---|
| Lakhvir Singh v. The State of Punjab & Ors. [CITATION: (2021) 2 SCC 763] | Supreme Court of India | The Court referred to this case to support its view that the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, can be invoked even if a minimum sentence is prescribed under another Act. |
The Supreme Court also considered the following legal provisions:
| Legal Provision | Description |
|---|---|
| Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 | Specifies the penalties for contravening orders under Section 3 of the Act, including a minimum imprisonment of three months. |
| Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 | Empowers the court to release certain offenders on probation, notwithstanding anything in any other law. |
Judgment
| Submission by the Parties | How it was treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s submission that the long delay and his conduct during the trial should be considered for setting aside the imprisonment. | The Court accepted this submission and decided to grant probation instead of imprisonment, considering the delay and the appellant’s conduct. |
| State’s submission that the minimum sentence under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, should be imposed. | The Court rejected this submission, holding that the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, which is a later enactment, would prevail. |
The Supreme Court held that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The Court reasoned that even if a minimum sentence is provided in the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, being a later enactment, would prevail. The Court referred to the judgment in Lakhvir Singh v. The State of Punjab & Ors. [(2021) 2 SCC 763]* to support this view.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the extraordinary delay of 37 years since the offense was committed. The fact that the appellant had remained on bail throughout the proceedings and had not been involved in any other offense also weighed heavily in the Court’s decision. The Court emphasized the need to balance the requirements of the law with the specific circumstances of the case, particularly the passage of time and the appellant’s conduct. The court also considered the fact that the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, was enacted after the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and hence, its provisions would prevail.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Passage of 37 years since the offense. | 40% |
| Appellant’s conduct of remaining on bail throughout the proceedings. | 30% |
| The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, being a later enactment. | 30% |
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
The Court stated:
- “A perusal of the aforesaid Section shows that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons, impose punishment less than the minimum prescribed in the Section.”
- “Even if there is minimum sentence provided in Section 7 of the EC Act, in our opinion, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of probation, the EC Act, being of the year 1955 and the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 being later.”
- “Even if minimum sentence is provided in the EC Act, 1955 the same will not be a hurdle for invoking the applicability of provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.”
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, can be invoked even when a minimum sentence is prescribed under another Act, particularly if the Probation Act is a later enactment.
- Courts can consider the extraordinary delay in the adjudication of cases and the conduct of the accused during the trial when deciding on the sentence.
- The benefit of probation can be extended to offenders in cases where the offense is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, considering the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that the appellant be released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, upon entering into a bond with two sureties. The sureties must ensure that the appellant maintains peace and good behavior for the remaining part of his sentence; otherwise, he may be called upon to serve the sentence.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, being a later enactment, will prevail over the minimum sentence provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. This clarifies the position of law that the benefit of probation can be extended even in cases where other statutes prescribe a minimum sentence.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in this case highlights the importance of considering the specific circumstances of each case, particularly the passage of time and the conduct of the accused, when deciding on sentencing. The Court’s decision to grant probation despite the minimum sentence provision under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, underscores the primacy of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, as a beneficial legislation aimed at reforming offenders.