Tarak Nath Keshari vs. State of West Bengal (Criminal Appeal No. 1444 of 2023)
Background
In August 1985, an inspection of the appellant's grocery shop in West Bengal found stocks of mustard oil and vegetable oil exceeding the permissible limit under the West Bengal Pulses, Edible Oil (Dealers Licensing) Order, 1978. He was convicted under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and fined Rs. 500, later reduced by the Calcutta High Court to three months' imprisonment (fine upheld). He appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that 37 years had passed since the incident, with the case pending in the High Court alone for over 31 years, and that he had remained on bail throughout with no other offences against him.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction on merits, finding no error in the concurrent findings of the courts below regarding the excess stock. However, considering the extraordinary delay (37 years since the offence, 31+ years pending in the High Court), the appellant's clean record otherwise, and that he had remained on bail throughout, the Court held he was entitled to the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. It clarified that even though the Essential Commodities Act prescribes a minimum sentence, the later Probation of Offenders Act (1958) is not barred by that minimum and can still apply, relying on its earlier decision in Lakhvir Singh v. State of Punjab. The appellant was accordingly released on probation on furnishing a bond and two sureties, instead of serving the sentence.
Lesson Learnt
Even where a criminal statute prescribes a mandatory minimum sentence, courts can still grant probation instead of jail time under the general Probation of Offenders Act, especially where there has been extreme, unexplained delay in the judicial process and the offender has no other criminal history.