Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
State vs Nanuram (2026:Rj-Jd:19111) on 22 April, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:19111]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 100/1999
State of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
Nanuram son of Parmeshwari Lal, resident of Ward No.16, Keshri
Singhpur District Ganganagar
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, AGA
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Sharma, Amicus Curiae
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Judgment
22/04/2026
1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the State of
Rajasthan under Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
seeking enhancement of sentence against the judgment and order
dated 12.12.1997 passed by the learned Special Judge, Essential
Commodities Act Cases, Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Case No.
9/1994, whereby the accused-respondent, namely Nanuram son
of Parmeshwari Lal was convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, but was
extended the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation
of Offenders Act instead of being awarded substantive sentence.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case leading to the filing of the
present appeal are that during inspection of the shop of the
accused-respondent, a substantial quantity of diesel and kerosene
oil was found stored, for which the accused failed to produce any
valid licence or authorization. Upon inquiry, the same was found to
(Uploaded on 27/04/2026 at 09:53:18 AM)
(Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 06:17:21 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:19111] (2 of 5) [CRLA-100/1999]
be in contravention of the relevant Control Orders issued under
the Essential Commodities Act. Consequently, proceedings were
initiated against the accused, and after completion of trial, the
learned trial court recorded conviction under Section 3/7 of the
Essential Commodities Act; however, instead of imposing a
sentence of imprisonment, the accused was released on probation.
3. Having regard to the fact that the present appeal is of
considerable antiquity and further noticing that the learned
counsel representing the respondent is not available, this Court
deems it appropriate, in the interest of justice, to appoint Mr.
Vikram Sharma, Advocate, as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court on
behalf of the respondent-accused under the Free Legal Aid
Scheme of the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority. The
remuneration payable to the learned Amicus Curiae shall be borne
by the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority in accordance
with the applicable Rules.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has
assailed the impugned order of sentence contending that the
learned trial court has committed a serious error in extending the
benefit of probation to the accused despite recording conviction
under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. It is
submitted that the offence in question is an economic offence
affecting the public at large and carries a minimum prescribed
sentence, and therefore, the grant of probation is wholly
unjustified. It is further urged that the sentence awarded is
grossly inadequate and does not meet the ends of justice, and
thus, the same deserves to be enhanced.
(Uploaded on 27/04/2026 at 09:53:18 AM)
(Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 06:17:21 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:19111] (3 of 5) [CRLA-100/1999]
5. Per contra, learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the
respondent-accused has supported the impugned order and
submitted that the learned trial court has exercised its discretion
judiciously in extending the benefit of probation. It is contended
that the accused is a first-time offender, has faced the agony of
trial for a considerable period, and no previous criminal
antecedents have been brought on record. It is further submitted
that the reformative approach adopted by the learned trial court
does not warrant interference, particularly in an old matter, and
that the appeal filed by the State deserves to be dismissed.
6. Heard learned Public Prosecutor for the State and learned
Amicus Curiae for the respondent-accused. Perused the material
available on record. This Court now proceeds to examine the
correctness, legality and propriety of the order passed by the
learned trial court in the matter of sentence.
7. What emanates from the record is that the respondent was
prosecuted for committing an offence under Section 3/7 of the
Essential Commodities Act and, after a full-fledged trial, came to
be convicted for having in his possession essential commodities,
namely diesel and kerosene, without valid authorization. The
accused was thereafter heard on the question of sentence.
Considering the submissions that the accused had faced the
rigours of a protracted trial and had suffered manifold difficulties,
both financial and mental, and taking into account the overall
circumstances of the case as well as his criminal antecedents, the
learned trial court found it appropriate to extend the benefit of
(Uploaded on 27/04/2026 at 09:53:18 AM)
(Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 06:17:21 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:19111] (4 of 5) [CRLA-100/1999]
probation to him instead of sentencing him to imprisonment
forthwith.
8. This Court is of the considered view that the question of
sentence lies primarily within the judicial discretion of the
convicting court, to be exercised in light of the settled principles of
law and the statutory framework, including the provisions of
Sections 360 and 361 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and
Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act.
Undisputedly, the respondent had no prior criminal antecedents
and the present case constitutes his first offence. It is also not in
dispute that the offence in question does not carry a sentence
exceeding seven years so as to exclude the applicability of the
probationary provisions.
9. In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned trial
court has adopted a reformative approach, which is well
recognized and embedded in the criminal jurisprudence of our
country, particularly in cases involving first-time offenders where
the possibility of reformation cannot be ruled out. The discretion
exercised by the learned trial court does not appear to be
arbitrary, perverse or contrary to law. No circumstance has been
brought to the notice of this Court which may warrant interference
in appellate jurisdiction on the question of sentence. Accordingly,
no error can be said to have been committed by the learned trial
court in extending the benefit of probation to the respondent. The
appeal, therefore, deserves to be dismissed.
10. Accordingly, the appeal, being devoid of merit, stands
dismissed.
(Uploaded on 27/04/2026 at 09:53:18 AM)
(Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 06:17:21 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:19111] (5 of 5) [CRLA-100/1999]
11. All pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
12. The record of the case be sent back to the learned trial court
forthwith.
13. The learned Amicus Curiae shall be entitled to remuneration
as per the Rules of the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority.
(FARJAND ALI),J
42-Pramod/-
(Uploaded on 27/04/2026 at 09:53:18 AM)
(Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 06:17:21 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
