The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRA No.14 of 1994 Arising out of the judgment and order dated 18.12.1993 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Kalahandi- Nawapara at Bhawanipatna in 11 (c) CC No.5/87. Ramesh Prasad Shukla …. Appellant State of Odisha …. Respondent -versus- Advocates appeared in this case through Hybrid Mode : For Appellant : Mr.B.S.Rayaguru, Advocate For Respondent : Mr.M.R.Mishra, ASC CORAM: HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO .……………………………………………………………………… Date of Judgment: 30.05.2025 ……………………………………………………………………….. Savitri Ratho, J. In this Criminal Appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 18.12.1993 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Kalahandi-Nawapara at Bhawanipatna in 11 (c) CC No.5/87, convicting him for commission of the offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (in short ‘E.C. Act’) and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for one year and CRA No.14 of 1994 Page 1 of 13 //2// to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default to undergo further R.I. for three months. PROSECUTION CASE 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 28.08.1987 at about 7.30 p.m., the Inspector of Supplies – Prakash Chandra Patro alongwith Ramanath Hota went to the rice mill of the appellant situated at Biswanathpur under Lanjigarh Police Station and found 11 bags of rice weighing 10 quintal 12 Kgs and 80 grams lying in the mill. On being asked, the appellant replied that it belonged to a fair price shop dealer, namely Naresh Prasad Shukla of village Kirkhola under Lanjigarh block who lifted the said rice from Biswanathpur Government Depot and kept it in his rice huller for transportation. The appellant produced only one issue order dated 27.8.1987 for five quintals of rice and the tally register from which it was found that the retailer lifted five quintals of rice on 20.08.1987 to have been sold to the consumers of the area and he has again lifted five quintals of rice on 27.8.1987 for sale to the consumers. This exceeded the permissible limit and the appellant having failed to produce any authority for possession of the same, the P.R. was submitted by the Inspector of CRA No.14 of 1994 Page 2 of 13 //3// Supplies which was registered as 2 (c) CC Case No.05 of 1987 for the offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. DEFENCE PLEA 3. The plea of the defence is complete denial. WITNESSES 4. In order to bring home the offence against the accused, the prosecution relied on the four prosecution witnesses. The defence examined only one witness. P.W.1-Ramanath Hota was the Inspector of Supplies, Sadar Bhawanipatna. P.W.2-Prakas Chandra Patra was the Inspector of Supplies, Bhawanipatna and he is the complainant in the case. P.W.3-Prahallad Mund was the Supervisor of Supplies. P.W.4-Kishore Kumar Patra is the Inspector of Supplies, Lanjigarh. P.W.1-Ramnath Hota has stated in his examination-in-chief on 28.08.1987 that he alongwith P.W.3 and others checked the rice mill of the accused and verified the mill premises and stores and found rice of 10 quintals 12 Kgs and 80 grams kept in 11 gunny bags. When he demanded documents, the accused produced one issue order and the tally register of rice and the issue order (Ext.1) granted in favour of one Naresh Prasad Shukla by the Marketing Inspector for 05 quintals of rice on 27.08.1987. The Marketing Inspector had made CRA No.14 of 1994 Page 3 of 13 //4// entry in the Tally Register of Naresh Prasad Shukla for 05 quintals of rice on 20.08.1987. Naresh Prasad Sukla was a resident of Bhawanipatna and was not present at the time of seizure. Tally register and issue register were seized under Ext.2 and the rice given in zima of the accused vide Ext.3. Weighment was done vide Ext.4. In his cross-examination he has stated that 05 quintals of rice was issued to one Narendra Prasad Shukla on 20.08.1987 as shown in the Tally Register and another 05 quintals of rice was issued to Narendra Prasad Shukla on 27.08.1987. Statement of account was recorded by P.W.2. He has also admitted that he knew Narendra Prasad Shukla who was the control dealer of rice, wheat and sugar for Khirkhola Gram Panchayat. He has admitted that the village Khirkhola situated
Legal Reasoning
at a distance of about 20 kms. from Biswanathpur village within hilly areas and the communication from Khirkhola to Biswanatpur is on hilly roads and only bullock carts had to carry the control commodities and any type of goods. P.W.2-Prakas Chandra Patra had also reiterated the version of P.W. 1. This witness in his cross-examination has reiterated the fact regarding lifting of rice by Naresh Prasad Shukla, i.e., 05 quintals of rice on 20.8.1987 and another 5 quintals of rice on 27.08.1987. He CRA No.14 of 1994 Page 4 of 13 //5// has also admitted in his cross-examination that he did not issue the subsequent issue order for five quintals of rice to Naresh Prasad Shukla and he asked A.K.Patra, the Marketing Inspector that after distribution of the first issue order of five quintals of rice, 2nd issue order for another five quintals of rice was issued to Naresh Prasad Shukla. P.W.2 has further admitted that he did not take any statement to that effect from A.K.Patra and also did not take any statement from Naresh Prasad Shula that five quintals of rice issued on 20.8.1987 was distributed to the consumers. In his cross-examination he has admitted that there will be difference in rice in summer season and in rainy season. He stated that in summer season there will be about 02 kgs less per quintal of rice, whereas in rainy season the weighment of rice will be more about 1-2 Kgs per quintal. P.W.3-Prahallad Mund who was working as Supervisor of Supplies stated that 11 bags of rice was found from the rice huller amounting to 10 quintals 12 kgs 80 grams and at that time, the appellant was present and on being asked, he stated that the stocks belong to Naresh Prasad Shukla who happens to be a retailer of village Khirkhola. He has admitted in his examination-in-chief that the appellant had lifted rice on 20.8.1987 and 27.8.1987. As it was 11 CRA No.14 of 1994 Page 5 of 13 //6// bags more than 5 quintals is found in the issue register, it was suspected that the appellant has illegally possessed the rice after purchasing for business purpose. In his cross-examination he has admitted that the accused told that the seized stocks belong to N.P.Shukla and according to the tally register, Naresh Prasad Shukla has lifted 05 quintals on each date, i.e. on 20.8.1987 and 27.8.1987. He has also submitted that he had not seen the rice distribution register and that he cannot say the name of the members of the village committee signed in the tally register and he cannot say if Murali Harijan was the member of the village committee. P.W.4-Kishore Kumar Patra has stated that on 28.8.1987 he accompanied P.C.Patra, Supply Inspector to the huller of the accused at Biswanatphur and they found 11 bags of rice in the huller and the accused could not produce any authority for the same. In his cross- examination he has stated that a man is permitted to hold rice up to 10 quintals. The 11 bags of rice was weighted which came to 10 quintals 12 kgs. D.W.1-Naresh Prasad Sukla who happens to be a dealer of essential commodities for the village Khirkhola. In his evidence he has stated that on 20.08.1987 he lifted 5 quintals of rice from CRA No.14 of 1994 Page 6 of 13 //7// Biswanathpur block in 5 bags. As he could not transport the same via Bhawanipatna he kept it in the rice huller of the accused and came back to Bhawanipatna to arrange a vehicle. Then he went to Raipur to attend his ailing father. On 27.8.1987 he lifted 5 quintals of rice from Biswanathpur block and kept it in the huller of the accused and came to Bhawanipatna to arrange a vehicle. He had lifted 10 quintals of rice on 20.8.1987 and 27.8.1987 respectively in 10 bags from Biswanathpur block and kept it in the rice huller of the accused and he came to Bhawanipatna to arrange a vehicle for the purpose of transportation and later on those 10 quintals of rice were seized by the supply staff. He had filed petition under Section 6-A of the EC Act before the Collector, Kalahandi in respect of the rice. In cross- examination he has stated that the dealership has been cancelled by the Collector, Kalahandi as he could not supply rice in time. JUDGMENT OF LEARNED TRIAL COURT 5. (i) As per P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and 4, the rice belonged to D.W.1- Naresh Prasad Shukla. (ii) D.W.1 has stated that the rice belonged to him and on account of lack of conveyance, he had stored it in huller of the accused. CRA No.14 of 1994 Page 7 of 13 //8// (iii) According to D.W.1, he had lifted 5 + 5 quintals of rice in 10 bags but the seized rice was contained in 11 bags and weighed 10 quintals 12 kgs. And 80 grams Weighment of rice may decrease and not increase. Hence, it is not the rice of D.W.1. (iv) P.W.1 has stated that as per the tally register, 5 quintals of rice lifted by Naresh Prasad Shukla has been sold. So, the rice lifted by D.W.1 cannot be connected to the seized rice. (v) The order passed by the learned ADM, Kalahandi, Misc. Case No. 8-87 dated 02.05.1987 seems to be misleading and is not in favour of the defence. It shows that the rice has been sold in public auction by another authorized dealer. SUBMISSIONS 6. I have heard Mr. B.S. Rayaguru, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. M.R. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. 7. Mr. B.S. Rayaguru, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the following points are to be determined in this appeal. CRA No.14 of 1994 Page 8 of 13 //9// “(i) Whether the prosecution has able to establish its case under section 7 of the E.C. Act against the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt? (ii) Whether the appellant can be said to have contravened the provision of Clause-3 of the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order? (iii) Whether the judgment passed by the learned Special Judge, Kalahandi holding the appellant guilty under Section 7 of the E.C. Act inasmuch as convicting him there under by sentencing him to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for further period of three months is sustainable in the eye of law? (iv) What relief can be granted to the appellant?” 8. Mr. Rayaguru, learned counsel for the appellant has also challenged the weighment of the rice as the prosecution has not examined the weighman who had weighed the seized rice and was to prove the exact weight of the seized rice. As per the evidence laid by P.W.1, he has admitted that though in presence of the accused, weighment list was prepared and P.W.1 as well as the accused had put their signatures on the said weighment list, but no independent witness had put their signature on the said weighment list which creates reasonable doubt with regard to seizure as well as preparation CRA No.14 of 1994 Page 9 of 13 //10// of weighment list. He also submitted that there is no evidence available on record as to how the seized rice had been weighted so also the genuineness/status of the weighing machine whether it was functioning rightly or not. He has also submitted that the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are inconsistent and contradictory to each other. He has finally submitted that the evidence of D.W.1 has not been refuted by the prosecution and has therefore remained unchallenged and should have been accepted. In support of his submissions, he has relied on the following cases: 1. Samakruti Kameswar Rao v. State of Orissa : (2014) 59 OCR 82. 2. Daitari Sahoo v. State of Orissa : (2008) (I) OLR 979; 3. Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation : (2015) 4 SCC 609; 4. Pranabandhu Pradhan @ Jabda & another v. State of Orissa : (2018) 71 OCR-120; 5. Baleswar Prasad Gupta v. State of Orissa : (2019) 76 OCR 255; 6. Tarak Nath Keshari v. State of West Bengal in Criminal Appeal No.1444 of 203 (arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) D No.28476 of 2018; decided on 10.05.2023 9. Mr. M.R. Mishra, learned Addl. Standing Counsel has opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant stating that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and since the CRA No.14 of 1994 Page 10 of 13 //11// conviction and sentence passed is based upon the evidence of prosecution witnesses and on sound analysis of facts and law, the same should not be interfered with. He has also submitted that the evidence of D.W.1 cannot be accepted as the seized rice weighed more than 10 quintals. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION 10. The stand of the appellant all through is that the rice belongs to one Naresh Prasad Shukla and he has produced documents to indicate that 10 quintals of rice had been issued to Naresh Prasad Shukla. He had also stated that Naresh Prasad Shukla had kept the rice in his huller as he was unable to transport the same. This has also been stated by the P.Ws, whose evidence has been discussed above. Naresh Prasad Shukla, who has been examined as D.W.1 has also stated that 10 quintals of rice in ten bags had been issued to him and he had kept them in the huller of the appellant as he was unable to transport the same for different reasons. He has also stated that his dealership has been cancelled by the Collector as he was unable to supply the rice in time. I find no reason to disbelieve the evidence D.W. 1 and the stand/defence of the appellant. CRA No.14 of 1994 Page 11 of 13 //12// 11. P.W.2 has stated that there will be difference in the rice in Summer Season and Rainy Season. In Summer Season there will be about 2 kgs. less per quintal of rice and in rainy season, the weighment of rice per quintal will be in 1 to 2 kgs. more. He has also stated after being satisfied with the statement of the accused he took his statement. If his statement is to be believed, the 12 kgs. of rice can be due to increase in weight due to rainy season. 12. P.W.4 has stated in cross-examination that a man is permitted to hold rice up to limit of 10 quintals. So if 10 quintals of rice in ten bags had been issued to Naresh Prasad Shukla and belonged to him possession of extra 12 Kgs of rice by the appellant cannot amount to an offence.
Decision
13. In view of the above discussion, it is apparent that 10 quintals of rice had been issued to Naresh Prasad Shukla, who had left it in the huller of the appellant in order to arrange conveyance for its transportation, and 10 quintals 12 kgs. of rice had been seized from the huller. In view of positive statement of P.W.4, the Supply Inspector of Lanjigarh that a man is permitted to hold a limit of 10 quintals and the statement of P.W that rice will increase by 1-2 kgs. per quintal in rainy season, the 12 kgs. of rice could have been held CRA No.14 of 1994 Page 12 of 13 //13// by the appellant without being proceeded against for violation of any control order or any provision of the EC Act. 14. In view of this discussion above, I am satisfied that the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt for which his conviction under Section 7 of the EC Act is liable for interference. 15. The judgment dated 18.12.1993 passed by the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Kalahandi-Nawapara at Bhawanipatna in 11(c)CC No.5/87convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 7 of the E.C Act is accordingly, set aside and the appeal is allowed. 16. As the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds be discharged. 17. After retaining a scanned copy of the records, the trial Court Records be sent back to the learned trial Court along with a copy of this judgment. …………………. (Savitri Ratho) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 30th May, 2025/RKS Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RANJAN KUMAR SETHI Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 01-Jun-2025 22:17:36 CRA No.14 of 1994 Page 13 of 13