Minimum statutory sentence under Essential Commodities Act does not bar benefit of probation for first-time offenders.

The applicant was convicted by the Addl. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Visnagar (Criminal Case No. 940/2010), for an offense under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and sentenced to 6 months rigorous imprisonment.

The conviction was later confirmed by the 5th Addl. Sessions Judge, Mehsana, in Criminal Appeal No. 7/2018.

The initial complaint involved storage of kerosene beyond limits (for which he was acquitted) and the discovery of four gas cylinders at his premises.

The applicant, aged 71 and suffering from age-related ailments, challenged the conviction and sought the benefit of probation.

The court primarily applied Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, regarding revision jurisdiction.

It relied on Section 360 of the CrPC and Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, which permit the release of offenders on probation for good conduct.

For substantive law, it applied Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

Tarak Nath Keshari v. State of West Bengal (2024), which held that a statutory minimum sentence is not a hurdle for invoking probation laws.

Harivallabha v. State of MP and Dhurukumar v. State of Maharashtra, where probation was granted for Section 7 offenses to first-time offenders.

The court evaluated the applicant's request for probation by balancing the statutory requirements of the Essential Commodities Act against the reformative principles of the CrPC.

The court noted that although Section 7 of the Act prescribes a minimum sentence of three months, recent Supreme Court jurisprudence in Tarak Nath Keshari clarifies that Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act remains applicable in special circumstances.

In applying this to the facts, the court found that the applicant is 71 years old, has no prior criminal antecedents as verified by the State's report, and has maintained peace during the 18-year pendency of the case.

The court reasoned that given these factors, a custodial sentence was unnecessary, and the objectives of justice would be met by releasing him on a bond of good behavior.

The Court directed the applicant to be released on probation under Section 360 of the CrPC upon entering into bonds and furnishing sureties before the trial court to ensure peace and good behavior for the remainder of the period. The sentence of imprisonment was thus suspended in favor of probation.