IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 807 OF 2004

Budhdeo Sahu …. Appellant

Versus

The State of Jharkhand …. Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.  

1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order of  

the  Jharkhand  High  Court  dated  8.8.2003  passed  in  Criminal  

Appeal No.24 of 1996 (R) by which the High Court has allowed the  

said appeal partly, setting aside the conviction and sentence of the  

co-accused  and  upholding  the  conviction  and  sentence  of  the  

present appellant against the judgment and order of conviction and  

sentence dated 25.3.1996 and 26.3.1996 respectively passed by the  

Additional  Sessions  Judge-cum-Special  Judge,  Gumla  in  

connection with Kamdara P.S. Case No.31/1992 (G.R. No.11/1992).  

2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that  

the appellant was dealing in public distribution shop.  Since the

appellant became the Government servant, the license for the said  

shop was cancelled  in  March,  1992.   On 10.5.1992,  a  raid  was  

conducted at the appellant’s house and during the search a drum  

containing 180 liters of kerosene oil was found and, therefore, an  

FIR was, accordingly, registered against the appellant and his father  

on the same day under the provisions of Section 7 of the Essential  

Commodities Act, 1955 as there was a violation of the provisions of  

the Bihar Kerosene Dealers’ Licensing Order, 1965 which provided  

that a person other than a licensee, was permitted to store kerosene  

oil  maximum up to  37  liters.  The  appellant  and his  co-accused  

denied the charges.   However,  the trial  court  vide judgment and  

order dated 25.3.1996 and 26.3.1996 convicted the appellant and  

his father for violation of the aforesaid provisions and sentenced  

each of them to undergo R.I. for six months with fine of Rs.500/-  

and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo R.I. for one  

month.  

3. Being aggrieved, the appellant and his father filed the criminal  

appeal  No.24/1996  (R)  before  the  Patna  High  Court.   The  High  

Court  of  Jharkhand at  Ranchi  disposed  of  the  said  appeal  vide  

judgment and order dated 8.8.2003 by which it acquitted the co-

2

accused Balchand Sahu - father of the appellant, but maintained  

the conviction and sentence so far  as the present appellant  was  

concerned.  Hence this appeal.  

4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned  

counsel for the State. There are concurrent findings of fact so far as  

the  appellant  is  concerned.  During  the  raid  conducted  by  the  

Department on 10.5.1992 at 1.30 P.M. 180 liters kerosene oil was  

found in the house of the appellant.  It was specifically stated by  

PW.5 Sharvan Sai, BDO, that kerosene oil was measured and it was  

found to be 180 liters.  In the cross-examination nothing could be  

elicited  from  him  that  the  statement  so  made  by  him  was  not  

correct.  He has denied the suggestion that no oil was recovered  

from the appellant Budhdeo Sahu and he was deposing falsely.  

5. Recovery  of  kerosene  oil  and  quantity  thereof  cannot  be  

doubted.  Thus, there is no cogent reason to interfere with the said  

findings of fact.  No material has been placed before us to show that  

the findings of fact so recorded are perverse or unreasonable being  

based  on  no  evidence.  No  other  point  worth  consideration  and  

acceptance was raised.  The appeal is liable to be dismissed.  

3

6. Learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  has  submitted  that  the  

incident had occurred in 1992.  A period of 17 years has elapsed.  

The appellant has served about 5 months and 6 days in jail out of  

the six months sentence awarded to him and he has deposited the  

fine also.  Therefore, it has been suggested by him that the sentence  

of the appellant be reduced to the period already undergone by him.  

Considering the fact that the Act provides minimum punishment of  

three months and the appellant has already served for more than 5  

months out of the six months sentence awarded to him and has  

deposited the fine and a period of 17 years has elapsed, in the facts  

and circumstances of  this  case,  the  sentence of  the  appellant  is  

reduced  to  the  period  already  undergone  by  him.  Since  the  

appellant is on bail, his bail bonds are discharged.  

7. With these observations, the appeal stands disposed of.

…….…………………………….J. (Dr. Mukundakam Sharma)

…….…………………………….J. (Dr. B.S. Chauhan)

New Delhi; 28th May, 2009.

4

 5

Digital Proforma

1. Case No. : Criminal Appeal No. 807 of 2004

2. Date of decision : 28.5.2009

3. Cause Title : Budhdeo Sahu vs.

The State of Jharkhand

4. Coram : Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma Hon’ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan

5. Date of C.A.V. : 25.5.2009

6. Judgment delivered : Hon’ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan by

7. Nature of Judgment : Non-Reportable whether reportable

6