The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRA No.256 of 1996 (In the matter of an application under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973) Budumuru Madhusudan Rao ……. Appellant -Versus- M.Y. Chetty & another ……. Respondents For the Appellant : Ms. Zenith Wallace, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Raj Bhusan Dash, ASC CORAM: THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Date of Hearing: 16.10.2025 : Date of Judgment: 28.10.2025 S.S. Mishra, J. The appellant in the present case has assailed the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 27.08.1996 passed by the learned Special Judge, Koraput, Jeypore in T.R. Case No.33 of 1994, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as the “E.C. Act”) and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred), in default of payment of the fine amount, to undergo further R.I. for a period of one month. 2.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Ms. Zenith Wallace, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Raj Bhusan Dash, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2-State. 3. The prosecution alleged that on 18.12.1992, the Civil Supplies Raiding party along with the Executive Magistrate went to check the shop-cum-go-down of the appellant situated at the A.E.F. Market, Sunabeda at about 9 A.M. The raiding party sealed the shop-cum-go- down of the accused appellant, as the same was then closed. Subsequently, when the appellant arrived, the shop was reopened in presence of the witnesses. 4. It is alleged that in the shop-cum-go-down, 20 quintals 59 kgs. 500 grams of pulses of different varieties and 2 quintals 50 kgs. of salt was stored. On demand, the accused appellant could not produce any documents justifying his possession of the commodities. Therefore, the complainant effected the seizure of the said goods vide Ext.1. Page 2 of 13 5. The statement of the accused appellant was also recorded and exhibited as Ext.3. On the basis of the aforementioned allegation, the prosecution alleged that the accused appellant has contravened Clause-3 (1) of the Orissa Pulses, Edible Oil Seeds and Edible Oil Dealers’ (Licensing) Order, 1977 and Clasuse-3 of the Orissa Declaration of Stocks and Price of Essential Commodities Order, 1973. 6. The prosecution, in order to establish its case, has examined two witnesses. P.W.1 was the Executive Magistrate and P.W.2 was the Civil Supplies Inspector. 7. The accused appellant has admitted the possession of the seized stock. However, he took the stand that the stock was found stored in the go-down, was belonging to one Sriram Murty (D.W.2) and one Bujingi Rao (D.W.3). He has contended that on 17.12.1992 night, in fact, the stock belonging to three persons including himself arrived in a truck and the truck driver told that the truck could not enter into the narrow lane. So he has unloaded the entire stock in his go-down telling that those two other persons would take their stocks in the next morning. Having admitted the stock and seizure, the appellant has also taken a stand that Page 3 of 13 since the shop was closed, there was no necessity for him to display any stock and the price in the board. This stand of the appellant is also reflecting in the statement of the accused/appellant recorded under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C. On the basis of the aforementioned stand taken by the appellant and the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, the learned trial Court proceeded and on appreciation of the evidence, arrived at a conclusion that the accused appellant has possessed pulses of various types of exceeding the prescribed limit of 10 quintals and as such, he has contravened Clause-3 (1) of the Orissa Pulses, Edible Oil Seeds and Edible Oil Dealers’ (Licensing) Order, 1977. Hence, he is liable for the offence punishable under Section 7(1)(a) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act. Accordingly, the accused appellant was sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred), in default of payment of the fine amount, to undergo further R.I. for a period of one month. 8. The accused appellant being aggrieved by the findings recorded by the learned trial Court leading to his conviction and sentence, has filed the present appeal. Page 4 of 13 9. Ms. Zenith Wallace, learned counsel appearing for the appellant took me to the testimonies of not only P.Ws.1 and 2 but also extensively read out the testimonies of D.Ws. 2 and 3. She submitted that the evidence of D.Ws. 2 and 3 has been completely misread and not at all appreciated by the learned trial Court. The specific stand of the accused appellant in his defence reflecting in the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C. and the defence evidence ought to have been weighed in the right prospective. However, the learned trial Court has miserably failed to appreciate the same. She further submitted that the defence witnesses have sufficiently proved on record that they are the owners of the stock, which was lying in the go-down for the time being. In support of their stand, they have also produced the documents. However, the learned trial Court brushed aside the entire evidence adduced by the defence in discharge of his onus. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the State has pointed out that not only the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 but also the documents produced by the prosecution makes out a clear cut case of violation of Clause-3(1) of the Pulse (License) Order. Therefore, there was no escape for the Page 5 of 13 appellant from the liability under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act. Learned trial Court has committed no error in convicting and sentencing the accused appellant. 11. By the help of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, I have gone through the evidence on record. It appears that the learned trial Court has primarily convicted the accused appellant on the ground that the appellant was found in possession of the pulses beyond the prescribed limit of 10 quintals. The appellant could not satisfactorily explain such possession while discharging his onus. 12. The defence plea that the commodity belongs to D.Ws.2 and 3 and that the said commodity had been kept by the transporter with the appellant, as the lane leading to the premises of D.Ws.2 and 3 was narrow and could not be negotiated by the transporter to reach there, therefore, unloaded the goods in the go-down of the appellant. The said defence plea has been disbelieved by the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court, while dealing with the evidence of D.Ws.2 and 3 has recorded the following finding: Page 6 of 13 “D.W.2 states that on 16.12.1992 he purchased five packets of Arhar Dal, two packets of Chana Dal, three packets of Masur Dal and two bags of Motor Chana each packet containing 49 K.Gs. 500 grams and each bag containing 99 K.Gs. He handed over these stocks to a Transport Company for giving delivery at Sunabeda. On 18.12.1992 morning the accused came to his house and told that his articles reached Sunabeda at late night and he (accused) had kept the articles in his godown and asked him to take delivery of the same. He gave him the Bill of that consignment. At about 10.30 A.M. he went to the godown of the accused to take his articles and found the Supply staff there. He showed the Bill to the Supply Officer and wanted to take back his goods, but the Supply Officer told that the articles were already seized and advised him to approach the Collector. He filed a petition before the Collector which is still pending. In cross- examination he admits that his house is situated at a distance of about two furlongs from the godown of the accused. He admits that his articles had been booked in his shop address. He further admits that he does not possess any document regarding bringing those articles from Raipur. The Collector passed order against him and he has preferred an appeal against it. D.W.3 also states that on 16.12.1992 he purchased five packets of Arhar Dal, three packets of Masuri Dal, two packets of Chana Dal and two bags of Bottani. He handed over the stocks to a Transport Carrier at Raipur for giving delivery at Sunabeda handing over the Bill to that Company. On 18.12.1992 at about 6 a.m. in the morning the accused came to his house and told that his goods arrived last night and kept in his godown and asked him to take away the same. He went to the godown of the accused at 10 A.M. and found the Supply staff, D.W.2 and others there. He had received the Bill from the accused which he showed to the Supply Officer and claimed his stock. The Supply Officer told that the stock was already seized and he should approach the Collector. He filed a petition before the Collector. He admits that he does not possess any document regarding his purchasing articles at Raipur and handing over the same to the Transport Company. He claims that he has filed the Bill and some other documents before the Collector. He admits that he does not possess any record to show that he filed documents before the Page 7 of 13 Collector. He denies the suggestion that he had not bought any article and that he is claiming falsely to save the accused.” 13. This is a case, where the seizure of the stock and excessive possession of the stock by the accused appellant is admitted. The prosecution has taken much pain to establish these aspects of the matter by adducing the evidence of two witnesses, namely, P.W.1, the Executive Magistrate and P.W.2, who was the Inspector of Supplies. Indeed, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 largely is not doubted by the appellant. However, while cross-examining P.W.1, certain questions were put to the witnesses so as to elucidate the defence of the appellant taken right from the beginning of the raid. 14. P.W.1 in his cross-examination has stated as under: “7. Supply personnels engaged labourers to bring out the seized articles. He does not know that names of those labourers. He denies the suggestion that at that time the accused told them that private persons had on the previous night this entire stock part of which belonged to him and the rest portion belonging to Bujang Rao and Sriram Murty was received in his godown being unloaded from a truck and before those two persons lifted their stock in the morning, the stock was seized by them (Supply Department). He denies the suggestion that those two persons arrived there at that time and claimed a portion of the stock as belonging to them. He denies the suggestion that the accused did not give his statement voluntarily; that by using force they obtained the signature of the accused on a statement; and that he is concealing true facts.” Page 8 of 13 Similarly, P.W.2 in his cross-examination has deposed as under: “6. He denies the suggestion that the accused showed bills and claimed two packets of Chana Dal each weighing 49 K.Gs. 500 Grams, three packets of Bottani each weighing 49 K.Gs. 500 grams, three packets of Masuri Gotta each weighing 49 K.Gs. 500 Grams, 6 packets of Arhar Dal each weighing 49 K.Gs. 500 Grams. He denies the suggestion that the accused did not give any statement. He denies the suggestion that the accused claimed that the rest of the stocks belong to V. Bhujanga Rao & B. Sriram Murty. He further denies the suggestion that the accused told them that the said stock arrived at late night on previous day and before the stock was removed by those persons the shop was inspected. He admits that subsequently the accused and those 7. two persons claimed their respective stocks before Collector, Koraput, in a 6-A, E.C. Proceeding. He denies that he is suppressing true facts.” 15. The prosecution, after adducing such evidence on record, has put the same to the accused appellant while recording the statement under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C. 16. In the defence, the appellant, while answering the Question No.7 stated as under: “Q-7: Have you got anything more to say ? Ans.: On 17.12.1992, stock of three persons came in a truck. The truck driver told that the land is very narrow. Therefore, the vehicle cannot be negotiated the land. Hence, all the goods were unloaded in the shop-cum-go-down.” Page 9 of 13 17. To substantiate the said stand taken by the appellant, the appellant has adduced the evidence of three witnesses. D.Ws.2 and 3 are the important witnesses. D.W.2 in his testimony has stated as under: “2. On 18.12.1992 morning the accused came to his house and told the witness that his articles reached Sunabeda late at night and he had kept the articles in his godown. He asked him to take delivery of the goods. He gave him the Bill of that consignment. At about 10.30 a.m. the witness went to the godown of accused to take the articles and found the police and Supply staff. He showed the bill to Supply Officer and wanted to take back his goods, but the Supply Officer told that the articles have been seized and as such cannot be handed over. He advised the witness to approach the Collector. He filed a petition before the Collector which is still pending.” 18. The said witness was subjected to the cross-examination by the prosecution, but nothing could be elucidated. Rather, he has very categorically stated that the part of the stock belongs to him. When the police and the staff of the Supplies Department were shown the documents regarding his ownership, the Supplies Officers told that since the articles have already been seized, the same cannot be handed over to him. The Supplies Officer has also advised the witness to approach the Collector. Therefore, the said witness has initiated a proceeding before the Collector under Section 6-A of the E.C. Act, which is pending. Page 10 of 13 19. Similarly, D.W.3 in his testimony has stated as under: “He knows the accused. On 16.12.1992 he had purchased Arhar Dal five packets, Masuri Dal three packets, Chana Dal two packets, Botani two bags. He handed over the stock to a transport carrier at Raipur to give delivery at Sunabeda. He also handed over the bill to the Transport Company. On 18.12.1992 at about 6 a.m. in the morning the 2. accused came to his house and told that his goods arrived late last night and kept in his (accused’s) godown. He told the witness to take away the same. 3. He went to the godown of accused at 10 a.m. When he reached the godown he found Police, Supply Staff, D.W.2, accused and other were there. The witness had received the bill from the accused. He showed the bill to the Supply Officer and claimed his stock. The Supply Officer told that the stock was already seized and he should approach the Collector. He filed petition before the Collector.” 20. This witness was also cross-examined in extenso. But the said witness has not shaken from his stand. The witness has stated that he reached the go-down at 10 A.M. At that time, the Police and the Supplies Department staff were present. He has shown the bills to the Civil Supplies Officer and claimed his stock. But the Civil Supplies Officer reiterated that since the stock has already been seized, the same cannot be released. Rather, advised him to approach the Collector. Therefore, he has filed a proceeding before the Collector, which is still pending. Page 11 of 13 21. Reading of the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C. coupled with the testimonies of D.Ws. 2 and 3 makes it abundantly clear that the stock indeed appears to be belonging to D.Ws.2 and 3. It was temporarily parked in the go-down of the appellant. Meanwhile, the raid had taken place. 22. D.Ws.2 and 3 have not only made the claim simplicitor, they were present at the time of the raid and sought for release of the stock. The Civil Supplies Officer stated that since the seizure has already taken place, nothing could be done. The said witnesses have also produced the relevant documents to establish their ownership, which was not looked into by the raiding party. They were advised to initiate a proceeding before the Collector. Therefore, both the D.Ws. have filed a petition before the Collector under Section 6-A of the E.C. Act claiming the stock. 23. In the aforementioned fact scenario of the present case, the defence plea taken by the appellant sounds genuine and the same could not have been brushed aside merely saying it is an afterthought. It cannot be a case of afterthought defence particularly because right from the Page 12 of 13 raiding time up till filing of a petition under Section 6-A of the E.C. Act, the stand of the D.Ws. 2 and 3 was that the part of the stock belongs to them. 24. In the aforementioned background, the reasonsings given by the learned trial Court to find the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 7 of the E.C. Act appears to be little doubtful. 25. Hence, sustaining the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court against the appellant may not be safe on the face of available evidence. Therefore, while extending the advantage of the benefit of doubt to the accused appellant, I am inclined to acquit the appellant of all the charges. 26. Accordingly, the Judgment dated 27.08.1996 passed by the learned Special Judge, Koraput, Jeypore in T.R. Case No.33 of 1994 is set-aside and the appellant is acquitted of all the charges. The bail bond furnished by the appellant stands discharged.
Decision
27. The Criminal Appeal stands allowed and disposed of. The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Dated the 28th Day of October, 2025/ Subhasis Mohanty (S.S. Mishra) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTY Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 29-Oct-2025 18:48:16 Page 13 of 13