The High Court
Case Details
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRA No.290 of 2000 (In the matter of an application under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973) Bipin Chandra Samant ……. Appellant -Versus- State of Orissa ……. Respondent For the Appellant : Mr. Tukuna Mishra, Amicus Curiae For the Respondent : Ms. Siva Mohanty, ASC CORAM: THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Date of Hearing: 08.07.2025 :: Date of Judgment: 18.07.2025 S.S. Mishra, J. The present Criminal Appeal, filed by the appellant under Sections 374 of the Cr. P.C., is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.11.2000 passed by the learned District Judge-cum-Special Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur in 2(c) C.C. Case No.1 of 1997, whereby the learned trial Court convicted the accused-appellant for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (for short the ‘E.C. Act’) and, accordingly, sentenced him to undergo R.I. for three months and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo further R.I. for one month. 2. The present appeal is pending since 23.11.2000. When the matter was taken up for hearing, none has appeared on behalf of the appellant.
Legal Reasoning
Therefore, this Court requested Mr. Tukuna Mishra, learned counsel, who is present in Court to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae. He has readily accepted the same and after obtaining entire record assisted the Court very effectively. This Court records appreciation for the meaningful assistance rendered by Mr. Mishra. 3. Heard Mr. Tukuna Mishra, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Ms. Siva Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. 4. The prosecution case in terse and brief is enumerated hereunder:- (a) The appellant Bipain Chandra Samant was appointed as a retail dealer in controlled commodities such as wheat and wheat products, rice, sugar and kerosene etc. under the public distribution system. One Page 2 of 11 Kasinath Behera, Raghunath Nayak and Smt. Saluani Mohapatra were the members of the village committee were assigned to supervise the distribution controlled commodities. Necessary license orders were issued to the appellant for the distribution of the commodities pertaining to village Majhigan. (b) It is alleged that on 12.07.1996 at 7.35 P.M., the Sub-Inspector of Police, (Vigilance), Berhampur (P.W.1) and Inspector of Supplies, Berhampur (P.W.2) jointly inspected the distribution centre of the appellant. On physical verification of the stock and perusal of the registers maintained by the accused-appellant, it was discovered that the Sugar Stock Register was not properly maintained up-to-date and there was shortage of stock of sugar. The Inspector of Vigilance (P.W.1) seized certain documents namely registers in the possession of the appellant and issued proper receipt and subsequently handed over those registers to the Inspector of Supplies, i.e., P.W.2, who in turn, investigated the matter and found that the appellant had contravened the condition No.4 of the license granted to him under Orissa Sugar Dealers Licensing Order, Clause-14 of the Orissa Wheat and Wheat Products Page 3 of 11 Control Order, 1988, Condition No.4 of the licence granted under the Orissa Kerosene Control Order, 1962 and Clause-3 of the Kerosene (Fixation of ceiling prices) Order, 1970. Therefore, the appellant was charged for commission of offence under Section 7 of the E.C. Act. The village committee members were also prosecuted for the said offence. (c) Before commencement of the trial, one of the village committee members Saluani Mohapatra expired. Hence, against her, the trial abated. Therefore, along with the appellant, Kasinath Behera and Raghunath Nayak were put to trial. 5. The prosecution in order to bring home charges examined five witnesses. Except P.W.4, who is an independent witness to the seizure, all other witnesses are official witnesses. P.W.1 was the Inspector of Police (Vigilance) whereas P.Ws.2 & 3 were the Inspector of Supplies and P.W.5 is a formal witness who produced the copies of license issued in favour of the appellant in respect of wheat and kerosene. 6. The learned trial Court emphasizing the evidence of the official witnesses particularly P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 found the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 7 of the E.C. Act, whereas recorded a finding that Page 4 of 11 other co-accused persons those who were the members of the village Supervising Committee had no role to play in the commission of the trial. The learned trial Court by relying upon the license condition held that the appellant was obliged to maintain each day opening stock including the quantity of stock received and quantity of stock delivered and maintaining the closing stock of each day, which he failed to do. The learned trial Court arrived at a finding that the appellant has miserably failed to comply with the license condition and failed in maintaining stock register. Therefore, he was found to be guilty of the offence charged with. Relevant would be to reproduce one of the paragraphs, which would demonstrate the manner in which the learned trial Court has appreciated the evidence of the official witnesses:- “12. It is also alleged that the accused Bipin the Chandra Samant had also contravened conditions of license granted to him under the Orissa Sugar Dealers Licensing Order, 1963. It is admitted by the defence that the accused had been appointed as a retail dealer in sugar. Condition No.3 in the licence issued in form B under clause 4(2) of the Sugar Control Order, lays down that the licence shall maintain a register of daily accounts showing correctly- (a) the opening stock on each day; Page 5 of 11 (b) the quantities received on each day showing the place from where and the source from which received; (c) the quantities delivered or otherwise removed on each day showing the places of destination; and (d) the closing stock of each day. It is also laid down in the licence that the licensee shall complete his accounts for each day on the day to which they relate unless prevented by reasonable cause the burden of proving which shall be upon him. It was alleged by the prosecution witnesses that the accused had failed to maintain the Stock Register for sugar upto date. It was alleged that though the accused had received eleven quintals of sugar on 1.6.96, it had not been mentioned in the Stock Register. This was put to the accused in question No.3 during his examination under sec. 313 Cr.P.C. He admitted the same, but explained that he had displayed the Stock in the Sales Register. The licence issued in favour of the accused lays down the manner in which daily accounts for sugar is to be maintained. Any deviation from clearly amounts to contravention of the term of licence. The plea of the accused that he had showed the stock position in the Sales Register cannot absolve him from his liability from maintaining the register of daily account for sugar as required under the licence itself. The accused on his own admission, therefore, is clearly guilty of contravention of the terms of licence granted to him under the Sugar Control Order.” there 7. The learned trial Court sentenced the appellant to undergo R.I. for three months and imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo Page 6 of 11 further period of R.I. of one month. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned District Judge-cum-Special Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, the present Appeal has been preferred by the appellant. 8. Mr. Mishra, learned Amicus Curiae has extensively taken me to the evidence brought on record by the prosecution and contended that this is a case of clear acquittal. He has also submitted that at the time of alleged commission of offence, the appellant was 50 years of age and as per prosecution, the alleged offence has been committed on 12.07.1996. Therefore, at present the appellant is about 78 years of old. 9. On the contrary, Ms. Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State has readout the license condition in regard to wheat, sugar and kerosene and submitted that the appellant himself in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has admitted the fact that he has received the stock. Therefore, he conceded to his default in maintaining the register. Hence, the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court is justified and interference is not called for. Page 7 of 11 10. I have carefully gone through the materials placed on record, the trial Court record and taken into consideration the submission made by both the parties. In the entire facts scenario of the present case, the evidence of P.W.4., the only independent witness is worthwhile to be considered in view of the specific defence taken by the appellant. P.W.4, who is a villager, in his testimony has deposed that the appellant has produced some registers before the police and the police seized the same in his presence. He has also deposed that the seizure list has been signed by him which is Ext.1. However, in the cross-examination by the defence, he has stated as under:- “Apart from the seized documents the accused also produced some other registers and requested the Vigilance police to seize the same, but the I.O. refused to seize those documents. None of the consumers has any grievance against the accused. Since most of the consumers belong to the working class, they generally go to the shop of the accused during the late hours in the evening to purchase controlled commodities. In the process there is rush in the shop room and some of the consumers fail to put their signatures in the registers.” 11. The specific plea of the appellant was that he requested P.W.1 to seize the other documents which are in his possession which would show Page 8 of 11 that he has been maintaining the register meticulously. However, P.W.1 refused to seize those registers and selectively taken records which suits the prosecution case. It is contended by the appellant that if those registers would have been seized, the allegation of not maintaining the daily record of the stock received and delivered would have been cleared. However, the raiding party has deliberately refused to take those registers rather chosen the register where the entries were not completed. In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant specifically stated that the register where he has maintained stock was not seized by the police rather he has refused to seize the same. He has also stated in his statement that few of the villagers generally come in the late hours and without signing the register leave the shop after taking the goods. 12. In the light of the statement of the accused made under Section 313 Cr.P.C., if the evidence of P.W.4 is appreciated, it is clearly emanated on record that the right registers where the entries were made regarding the stock have not been seized by the P.W.1, which are stated to have been subsequently handed over to P.Ws.2 & 3. This aspect of the Page 9 of 11 matter has not been appreciated by the learned trial Court in proper prospective, rather brushed aside the same with an observation that if the Inspector of Supplies and Inspector of Vigilance, Berhampur refused to accept the registers relating to the stock, the accused-appellant could have immediately intimated the same in writing to the Collector or to the Sub-Collector. Since the same has not been done by the appellant, therefore, the submission cannot be believed. However, I am of the considered view that an independent witness has very categorically stated that the right registers which was supposed to be seized by the police and the Vigilance Department has not been seized and also the fact that in the rush hours, the villagers sometimes generally not signed the receipt is trustworthy to be believed and relied upon particularly when the appellant has taken the same defence in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Since the learned trial Court has not taken into consideration the evidence of P.W.4, who is an independent witness rather only relied upon the official witnesses, I am of the considered view that the finding recorded by the learned trial Court is liable to be varied. Page 10 of 11 13. Accordingly, by not agreeing with the conclusion drawn by the learned District Judge-cum-Judge, Special Court, Ganjam, Berhampur, I am inclined to allow the appeal and acquit the appellant of the charges under Section 7 of the E.C. Act. The bail bonds stands discharged.
Decision
14. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and disposed of. 15. This Court acknowledges the effective and meaningful assistance rendered by Mr. Tukuna Mishra, learned Amicus Curiae in this case. Learned Amicus Curiae is entitled to an honorarium of Rs.7,500/- (Rupees seven thousand five hundred) to be paid as a token of appreciation. The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Dated the 18th of July 2025/ Swarna (S.S. Mishra) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SWARNAPRAVA DASH Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 22-Jul-2025 17:09:18 Page 11 of 11