The High Court
Case Details
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRA No.207 of 1996 (In the matter of an application under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973) Balaram Naik and another ……. Appellants -Versus- State of Orissa ……. Respondent For the Appellants : Ms. Subhashree Sen, Amicus Curiae For the Respondent : Mr. Raj Bhusan Dash, Additional Standing Counsel CORAM: THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Date of Hearing: 21.08.2025 :: Date of Judgment: 09.09.2025 S.S. Mishra, J. The present criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 29.06.1996 passed by the learned Special Court, Mayurbhanj, Baripada in G.R. Case No. 244 of 1992/T.C. No. 4 of 1993, whereby the appellants have been convicted under Sections 7 and 8 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter “the Act”) for alleged violation of the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each. 2. The present appeal is pending since 30.07.1996. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 03.07.2025, none has appeared on behalf of
Legal Reasoning
the appellant. Therefore, this Court requested Ms. Subhashree Sen, learned counsel, who is present in Court to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae. She 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 Ms. Sen. 3. Heard Ms. Subhashree Sen, learned Amicus Curiae, for the appellants and Mr. Raj Bhusan Dash, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. 4. The appeal was heard on 21.08.2025 and the judgment was reserved. Ms. Sen, learned Amicus Curiae has filed written note of submission on 04.09.2025 whereas Mr. Dash, learned Additional Page 2 of 9 Standing Counsel for the State has filed the written argument on 22.08.2025. 5. The prosecution case in brief is that in the night of 28.08.1992 at about 11.20 P.M., while the O.I.C. of Satkosia Police Station, along with the Additional Superintendent of Police was on patrolling duty in connection with investigation of P.S. Case No. 24/92, they detected a truck bearing Registration No.O.R.J.-3659 on the P.W.D. road. On search, it was allegedly found carrying 40 bags of boiled rice weighing about 100 K.Gs. The appellant No.2- Chintamani Sahu, was the driver of the vehicle, and the appellant No.1-Balaram Naik, was present there and had claimed ownership of the rice. As no licence or permit was produced on demand, the rice along with the vehicle was seized, and an F.I.R. was lodged by the O.I.C. himself. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted, and ultimately the appellants were put to trial on their stance of denial. 6. The plea of the appellants is one of complete denial. It was contended that the seized rice did not exclusively belong to appellant No.1, but rather to eight villagers including D.W.1, who had entrusted Page 3 of 9 the rice to be transported from Nandipada to their village for personal use. The defence further relied upon Ext.A and Ext. A/1 (Collector’s order and claim petition) to substantiate such plea. 7. The prosecution examined four witnesses, including the Investigating Officer, while the defence examined one witness, namely D.W.1, Judhistir Mohanty, who claimed ownership of 8 quintals of the rice. 8. The learned trial Court, however, did not accept the defence version and relying upon the statutory presumption under Clause 3(a) of the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965 read with Section 14 of the E.C. Act, convicted both appellants. The relevant portion of the judgment under challenge is extracted herein below:- “8. The evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 added by the evidence of P.W.4 clearly shows seizure of 40 quintals of rice. All the witnesses have denied the suggestion that 7 to 8 persons were claiming the rice at the time of detection. Only P.W 1 has stated to have seen Dambarudhar Mohanta, Prameswar Mohanta and Judhistira Mohanta in the Police station in the morning, but he paraded his ignorance about the claiming of rice by those persons from the Police. Only Ext. A, the order of the Collector, Mayurbhanj shows that eight persons including accused Balaram Page 4 of 9 and D.W.1 claimed the rice on 21.11.92, which was not accepted by the Collector, Mayurbhanj. In the present case, both the accused persons were found to be in possession of 40 quintals of rice loaded in a truck, which amounts to storage as per the above enumerated position of law. Further, the onus is heavy on the accused persons to prove that they are not the dealers and were not in possession of more than ten quintals of rice or rice and paddy taken together. 9. D.W.l has stated to be one of the owners of the rice amounting to eight quintals out of the entire stock. According to him, he purchased the said rice from Nandipada market and gave the same to the accused Balaram (only present on the date of examination of D.W.1 and the other accused was represented) to bring it to his village Mahuldiha along with the Hat receipt. According to him, he gave Rs. 50/- to the truck driver for the said transportation. In cross- examination, the witness has clearly admitted that neither he nor accused Balaram showed the Hat receipt to the Police at any point of time claiming D.W.1 to be owner of eight quintals of rice. He has more specifically stated that he did not claim the rice on the strength of the said Hat receipt at any point of time. For the aforesaid version of D.W.1, the plea of the accused persons is not only belated, but also cannot be believed. Therefore, I hold the accused Balaram Naik and the driver of the truck accused Chintamani Sahu to be guilty for violating the aforesaid control Order read with Section 3 punishable U/s.7 and 8 of the E.C.Act, Both the accused rigorous shall imprisonment for six months each.” undergo persons Page 5 of 9 9. Having considered the submissions and carefully examined the trial Court records, this Court finds several infirmities in the prosecution case which go to the root of the matter. The first and foremost inconsistency lies in the number of bags allegedly seized. It is pointed out by Ms. Sen, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants that while some of the prosecution witnesses have spoken of 40 bags, the other documents indicate seizure of46 bags. Such a variation shakes the very foundation of the case. The actual quantity seized, cannot be brushed aside as a clerical error. When the prosecution rests its case on alleged possession beyond the permissible limit, clarity as to the exact number of bags and the weight of rice is essentially to be established on record. The prosecution to begin with needs to bring home the charges through credible evidence, then only the onus transfer to the accused to dissociate it from the charges. In this case, the prosecution could not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt regarding the quantity of seized offending articles. Page 6 of 9 10. Equally significant is the manner in which the weighing was carried out. The record reveals that the weighing was not done bag-wise but in lump sum, and it was presumed that each bag contained exactly 100 kilograms. Such a mechanical presumption without scientific or independent verification robs the seizure of evidentiary value and casts a serious doubt as to whether the rice in fact exceeded the prescribed quantity so as to attract the mischief of the Control Order. 11. Ms. Sen, learned Amicus Curiae further highlighted the timing of the seizure, which is another aspect where the prosecution version suffers from contradiction. The F.I.R. mentions that the truck was intercepted at 11.20 P.M. on 28.08.1992, whereas some witnesses have stated that the truck was brought to the police station and produced in the morning of the next day. This inconsistency regarding the timing of detection raises doubt about the credibility of the prosecution narrative. 12. The learned trial Court has also erred in its application of statutory presumption. Reliance was placed on Clause 3(a) of the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order without first establishing the foundational facts of seizure and possession beyond ten quintals. The Page 7 of 9 presumption under law can only arise once such basic facts are proved beyond doubt, which is not the case here. Moreover, Clause 7(2) of the Act, which casts a reversal burden on the accused, has not been clearly dealt with in the impugned judgment, which indeed weakening the prosecution case further and lean in favour of the defence. 13. Lastly, the defence plea that the rice belonged to multiple villagers has not been given its due consideration. The testimony of D.W.1 and the Collector’s order, though not accepting the claim, clearly record that several persons had come forward to assert ownership. This lends support to the defence version that the rice did not exclusively belong to the appellant Balaram Naik, and therefore the statutory presumption of possession and dealing without valid authentication cannot automatically be drawn against him. 14. Taken cumulatively, these infirmities create a serious doubt about the prosecution version and make it unsafe to sustain the conviction of the appellants, rather the appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt leading to their acquittal. Page 8 of 9 15. The appellants, namely Balaram Naik and Chintamani Sahu, are acquitted of the charges under Sections 7 and 8 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.06.1996 passed by the learned Special Court, Mayurbhanj, Baripada in G.R. Case No. 244 of 1992/T.C. No. 4 of 1993 are hereby set aside. The bail bonds, if any, shall stand discharged. 16. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. 17. This Court acknowledges the effective and meaningful assistance rendered by Ms. Subhashree Sen, 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. (S.S. Mishra) Judge The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Dated the 9th September, 2025/Swarna Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SWARNAPRAVA DASH Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 10-Sep-2025 18:51:46 Page 9 of 9