Date of the Judgment: May 10, 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 513
Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Rajesh Bindal, J.
Can a person convicted under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 be released on probation? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where the incident occurred nearly four decades ago. The Court considered whether the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, could be applied despite the minimum sentence prescribed under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal, with the opinion authored by Justice Rajesh Bindal.
Case Background
The case involves an appeal by Tarak Nath Keshari against the State of West Bengal. The appellant was convicted by the Trial Court on July 29, 1986, under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, for violating the West Bengal Pulses, Edible Oil (Dealers Licensing) Order, 1978. The violation was due to the appellant having excess stock of mustard and vegetable oil than permitted, during an inspection of his grocery shop on August 20, 1985. The Trial Court sentenced him to six months of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500, along with forfeiture of the seized oil’s sale proceeds. The High Court at Calcutta upheld the conviction but reduced the imprisonment to three months while maintaining the fine.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| August 20, 1985 | Inspection of Tarak Nath Keshari’s grocery shop; excess mustard and vegetable oil found. |
| July 29, 1986 | Trial Court convicts Tarak Nath Keshari under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. |
| July 4, 2017 | High Court at Calcutta upholds the conviction but reduces the sentence. |
| September 7, 2018 | Supreme Court issues notice in the appeal, restricted to the question of the fine. |
| May 10, 2023 | Supreme Court disposes of the appeal, directing the release of the appellant on probation. |
Course of Proceedings
The Trial Court convicted the appellant on July 29, 1986, for violating the West Bengal Pulses, Edible Oil (Dealers Licensing) Order, 1978, sentencing him to six months of rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The High Court at Calcutta, in an appeal, upheld the conviction on July 4, 2017, but reduced the imprisonment to three months. The Supreme Court issued a notice on September 7, 2018, restricted to the question of imposition of fine in addition to the sentence.
Legal Framework
The case primarily revolves around Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, which specifies penalties for contravening orders made under Section 3 of the Act. The relevant portion of the section is as follows:
“7.Penalties – (1) If any person contravenes any order made under Section 3, – (a) he shall be punishable, – (i)…. (ii) 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: Provided 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;”
Additionally, Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, is central to the case, which allows for the release of offenders on probation under certain conditions. The relevant part of the section is as follows:
“4.Power of court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct.—(1) 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, with or without sureties, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period, not exceeding three years, as the court may direct, and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour:”
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments:
- The incident occurred in 1985, and more than 37 years have passed.
- The appellant was on bail throughout the proceedings.
- The trial concluded quickly, but the matter remained pending in the High Court for over 31 years.
- Given the passage of time and the appellant’s conduct, the sentence of imprisonment should be set aside.
- A fine should be imposed in lieu of imprisonment.
State’s Arguments:
- Two courts have found the appellant guilty of the offense.
- Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, prescribes a minimum punishment of three months.
- The proviso to Section 7(1)(a)(ii) allows for a sentence less than the minimum for ‘special’ and ‘adequate’ reasons.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s Submission: Leniency due to the passage of time. |
|
| State’s Submission: Upholding the conviction and minimum sentence. |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:
- Whether the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant could be set aside and a fine imposed instead, considering the long passage of time since the incident.
- Whether the benefit of probation can be granted to the appellant 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 sentence of imprisonment could be set aside and a fine imposed. | The Court did not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts. However, considering the long passage of time, the Court decided to grant probation instead of imprisonment. |
| Whether the benefit of probation can be granted despite the minimum sentence under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. | The Court held that the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, being a later enactment, would prevail over the minimum sentence provision in the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The Court granted probation to the appellant. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
- Lakhvir Singh v. The State of Punjab & Ors [2021] 2 SCC 763: The Supreme Court referred to this case to support the view that the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, can be applied even if a minimum sentence is prescribed under another law.
Judgment
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s submission for setting aside the sentence of imprisonment due to the long passage of time. | The Court did not set aside the conviction, but instead, granted the appellant the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, considering the long passage of time and the fact that the appellant was not involved in any other offense. |
| State’s submission for upholding the minimum sentence under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. | The Court acknowledged the minimum sentence provision but held that the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, being a later enactment, would prevail. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- Lakhvir Singh v. The State of Punjab & Ors [2021] 2 SCC 763: The Supreme Court followed this case, using it as a precedent to justify the application of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, despite the minimum sentence prescribed in the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:
- The incident occurred more than 37 years ago.
- The appellant was on bail throughout the proceedings and had not been involved in any other offense.
- The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, is a later enactment than the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and its provisions can be invoked even if a minimum sentence is prescribed under another law.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Passage of time (37+ years since the incident) | 40% |
| Appellant’s conduct (on bail, no other offenses) | 30% |
| Applicability of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 | 30% |
| Analysis | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
Logical Reasoning
The Court’s reasoning was that while the appellant was found guilty, the circumstances of the case, especially the long passage of time and the appellant’s good conduct, warranted the application of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The Court emphasized that the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, being a later law, had an overriding effect over the minimum sentence prescribed under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The court also considered the fact that the appellant was not involved in any other offence and was on bail throughout the proceedings. The court noted that “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.” The court further stated, “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.” The court also referred to the case of Lakhvir Singh v. The State of Punjab & Ors [2021] 2 SCC 763, to support its decision. The court stated that “the appellant is directed to be released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on entering into bond and two sureties each to ensure that he will maintain peace and good behaviour for the remaining part of his sentence, failing which he can be called upon to serve the sentence.”
Key Takeaways
- The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, can be applied even if a minimum sentence is prescribed under another law, particularly if the Probation of Offenders Act is a later enactment.
- Courts may consider the long passage of time since the commission of an offense and the conduct of the offender while deciding on the sentence.
- Probation can be granted if the offender has not been involved in other offenses and has maintained good behavior during the proceedings.
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 bond ensures that he will maintain peace and good behavior for the remaining part of his sentence, failing which he can 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, can override the minimum sentence provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, in cases where the offender is eligible for probation. This clarifies the applicability of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, in cases where other statutes prescribe minimum sentences. This decision reinforces the principle that the courts can consider the specific circumstances of a case and the conduct of the offender while deciding on the sentence.
Conclusion
In the case of Tarak Nath Keshari vs. State of West Bengal, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal by granting probation to the appellant under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, despite the minimum sentence prescribed under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The Court considered the long passage of time since the offense, the appellant’s conduct, and the overriding effect of the later enactment, the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. This judgment emphasizes the court’s discretion to consider individual circumstances and apply the law in a manner that serves justice and rehabilitation.
Category
Parent Category: Criminal Law
Child Category: Probation of Offenders Act, 1958
Parent Category: Essential Commodities Act, 1955
Child Category: Section 7, Essential Commodities Act, 1955
Parent Category: Criminal Procedure
Child Category: Sentencing
FAQ
Q: What is the main issue in the Tarak Nath Keshari vs. State of West Bengal case?
A: The main issue was whether a person convicted under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, which prescribes a minimum sentence, can be released on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
Q: What did the Supreme Court decide?
A: The Supreme Court decided to grant probation to the appellant, holding that the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, being a later enactment, can override the minimum sentence provision of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
Q: What is the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958?
A: The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, allows courts to release certain offenders on probation for good conduct instead of immediately sentencing them to imprisonment.
Q: Why did the Supreme Court grant probation in this case?
A: The Supreme Court granted probation considering the long passage of time since the offense (over 37 years), the appellant’s good conduct, and the fact that the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, is a later law than the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
Q: What does this judgment mean for future cases?
A: This judgment clarifies that the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, can be applied even when another law prescribes a minimum sentence, especially if the Probation of Offenders Act is a later enactment. It also highlights the importance of considering the specific circumstances of each case.