LexM/S PRECIOUS OIL CORPORATION AND ORS versus STATE OF ASSAM
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 1 S.C.R. 762 A MIS PRECIOUS OIL CORPORATION AND ORS B v. ST ATE OF ASSAM (Criminal Appeal No. 212 of 2008) FEBRUARY 5, 2009 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, P. SATHASIVAM AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.] LUBRICATING OIL AND GREASES (PROCESS/NG, C SUPPLY AND DISTRIBUTION REGULATION) ORDER, 1987: Clauses 3,4 and 5(3) - Accused found carrying on business of processing lubricating oil without licence, keeping r 0 huge quantity thereof and sample taken found to be adulterated - Accused not maintaining proper books of ~ .... account - Sentence of one month's simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 3, 0001- imposed on each of the accused uls 7(1)(a)(i) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955, affirmed by E High Court - Conviction and sentence upheld - In such white- collar offences accused cannot be let off on probation - Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - s. 7(1)(a)(i} - Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Appellant no.1 concern, its proprietor A-2 and F employee A-3 were prosecuted for commission of offences punishable u/s 7(1 )(a)(i) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The prosecution case was that when the Inspector of Food and Civil Supplies inspected the premises of the appellant concern, he found that G though the accused were in the business for over six months, they did not possess the necessary licence as required under the Lubricating Oil and Greases (Processing, Supply and Distribution Regulation) Order, 1987; that on an analysis of the sample of the lubricating H 762 PRECIOUS OIL CORPORATION AND ORS v. STATE OF 763 ASSAM oil taken from th«;i premises of the appellant concern, the A same was found to be adulterated; though a large quantity of lubricating oil was found stored in the premises of the concern, proper books of account were not found to have been maintained by it; and, thus, the accused were found to have violated Clauses 3, 4, and B 5(5) of the Order. The trial court convicted the accused of the offences charged and sentenced them to simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/- each. The High Court affirmed the conviction and the sentence. c In the appeal filed by the accused, it was contended for the appellants that there was no mens rea and no sale was involved and, therefore, the appellants could not be .... said to have violated provisions of the 1987 Order. It was alternatively pleaded that, in any event, the appellants D ~- were entitled to benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. Although the accused took the plea that E there was no sale, but there was display board showing stocks and prices of the articles. This itself was indicative of the fact that sale transactions were being carried on. The allegations against the accused, inter-alia, were that no licence was obtained, proper books of account were F not maintained and adulterated lubricating oil in a large quantity was stored. The trial court found the appellants guilty and the High Court rightly affirmed the conviction and sentence. [Para 5, 11 and 12] [766-G; 768-A, E-F; 767- G-H] G ~' lshar Das v. State of Punjab 1973 (2) SCC 65 and Pyarali K. Tejani v. Ma.hadeo Ramchandra Dange and ·Ors. 1974 (1) sec 167, relied on. 2. The plea relating to Probation of Offenders Act, H 764 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 1 S.C.R. A 1958 raised by the accused was rightly rejected by the High Court holding that the offence alleged was a white- collar offence. Application of the probation principles is negatived by the imperatives of social defence and the improbabilities of moral proselytisation. No chances can B be taken by society with a man whose anti-social operations, disguised as a respectable trade, imperil numerous innocents. He is a security risk. Besides, the white-collar criminals committing economic offences are unlikely to be dissuaded by the gentle probationary C process. In the circumstances, the accused cannot be let off on probation.[Para 5, 14 and 15] [766-H; 769-D-E; 767- A; 770-C] D E Case Law Reference: 1913 (2) sec 65 1974 (1) sec 167 relied on relied on para 13 para 16 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 212 of 2009. From the final Judgment and Order dated 14.9.2007 of the Gauhati High Court in Crl. Appeal No. 28 of 2002. Ashok K. Srivastava and lndrajeet Das for the Appellants. F Avijit Roy (for M/s. Corporate Law Group) for the Respondent. G The Judgment
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.