He High Court
Case Details
IN THE H HE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUT CUTTACK CRA No. 40 of 1998 Barada Prasana D na Das …. Appellant Mr. A.K. Mishra ishra, Advocate State of Orissa -Versus- …. CORAM: Respondent Mr. M.S. R M.S. Rizvi, ASC (Vigilance) THE HON’BL BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN NJAN DASH ORDER 08.09.2025 Order No. 12 1. This Ap Appeal is directed against the judgment gment and order dated 07.02.199 2.1998 passed by the learned 1st Addl. Sess l. Sessions Judge- Cum-Special Ju cial Judge, Cuttack in VIG. G.R. Case No.1 e No.16 of 1986, wherein the so sole Appellant, stood trial for the off he offence under Section 7 of th of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 1955 (hereinafter referred to as th o as the “EC Act”) for violation of Clause (3) of Orissa Declaration of n of Stock and Price; Clause (12) of the f the Pulses and Edible Oil and il and Edible Oil Dealer Licensing Order rder and Clause (10) of the Whe 2. rders. e Wheat and Wheat Product Control Orders. The App he Appellant herein, was sentenced to underg undergo rigorous imprisonment fo ent for 15 (fifteen) days and to pay a fine of fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five T Five Thousand only), in default to underg undergo rigorous imprisonment fo ent for further period of 01(one) month. 3. The fact he factual matrix of the case is that the Co the Complainant, who is the Inspe e Inspector of the Vigilance Cell, Cuttack, o tack, on receiving reliable informa formation, conducted a raid on 04.03.1986, .1986, along with CRA No. 40 of 19 f 1998 Page 1 of 5 P other staff, at th f, at the business premises of the Appellant pellant, operating under the name name and style of M/s. Janata Pratisthan, sthan, situated at Malgodown, Cu n, Cuttack. During the course of investigat estigation, it was found that ther at there were discrepancies in the stock stock and price display. Specifi pecifically, 14 bags of wheat were found in und in excess of what was declar declared, and 30 tins of mustard oil (Ratho b atho brand) were discovered in th d in the godown, which were not reflected o cted on the stock and price board board. The stock board displayed 41 bags 1 bags of wheat; however, upon upon physical verification, 55 bags w gs were found, indicating an ex an excess of 14 bags. Additionally, while while no mustard oil was shown i hown in the stock register or price board, 3 ard, 30 tins were found stored on red on the premises. 4. Upon c pon completion of the enquiry, the C the Complainant submitted the re the report before the S.P. Vigilance, Centra Central Division, Cuttack, who tr
Legal Reasoning
who treated the said report as FIR and endo endorsed with a direction to OIC to OIC, Vigilance P.S. Cuttack to register a ister a case under Sections 7/9 of 7/9 of the E.C. Act and further directed P
Legal Reasoning
ected P.W.2, Sri. Pitabas Behera ehera, the Inspector, Vigilance Cell, C ell, Cuttack to investigate into e into the matter. P.W.2, later handed over over the charge of the investigat estigation to Inspector G.C. Samal. 5. In cours course of the investigation, the Appellant w lant was found in contravention of tion of Clause 3 of the Orissa Declaration of tion of Stock and Price Order, Cla er, Clause 12 of the Pulses and Edible Oil e Oil (Edible Oil Dealers Licensin icensing) Order, and Clause 10 of the Wheat Wheat and Wheat Products Contro Control Order, which are punishable under S nder Section 7 of the Essential Co tial Commodities Act. CRA No. 40 of 19 f 1998 Page 2 of 5 P 6. The cas he case of the defence is one of complete plete denial and false implication lication and took the stand that he had no kn no knowledge of anything regard regarding excess of stock as against the book e book balance or keeping of 30 t f 30 tin mustard oil in his business premis remises. He also took the plea th lea that at the relevant time, he was not pre not present in the ises. shop premises. 7. The pr he prosecution antiate in order to substantiate its case, examined three three witnesses viz P.W.1, an independent endent witness to seizure, P.W.2, .W.2, the retired DSP, Vigilance, who con ho conducted the raid and prepare prepared the report which was treated as FI as FIR and also investigated into ed into the case, P.W.3 is a retired clerk from k from the Office of Civil Supply upply and was a senior assistant in the sup he supply Office, Cuttack at the at the relevant time. Amongst the witn e witnesses, the substantial evid l evidence comes from the testimony of P y of P.W.2 in as much that P.W.3 t P.W.3 has simply produced a document at t nt at the instance of the court fro urt from the Office of Civil Supply, Cutt , Cuttack. In the defence, the Pet Petitioner examined two witnesses. 8. The lea he learned trial court having examined th ed the evidence came to hold th old that the existence of stock of 13 tin of tin of mustard oil as reflected in t ed in the stock register found not reflected in cted in the board in violation of C n of Clause 12(2) of the Orissa Pulses Edibl Edible Oil Seeds and Edible Oil Oil Dealers Licensing Order, 1977 and 7 and held him guilty under Sec er Section 7 of the E.C. Act and upon his n his conviction, sentenced him t him to undergo R.I. for 15 (Fifteen) days a days and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000 .5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only). 9. The lear he learned counsel for the Appellant, in th , in the contrary, submitted that t that the learned court did not appreciate iate the evidence CRA No. 40 of 19 f 1998 Page 3 of 5 P in its true spirit. spirit. He further submitted that the learned learned trial court did not appreci ppreciate the fact that the prosecution ad ion admitted the Appellant was was not present at the relevant time and e and he has not been examined mined as well in order to ascertain the d the discrepancy found at the tim he time of alleged inspection. He further con er contended that the prosecution cution has measurably failed to prove that e that the articles were stock for s k for sale on the other hand, the articles as les as deposed to by the witness tnesses were kept in a separate place and a and as such, the same does not a s not attract the provisions of the relevant law ant law. It is also contended that that the Collector, under Section 6(a)of th a)of the E.C. Act verifying all do all documents and hearing the prosecutio ecution in Misc. Case No.14 o 14 of 1986, directed release of the article articles seized in connection with n with the investigation and the learned tria ed trial court did not appreciate t ciate the aforesaid fact and jumped to a co o a conclusion in holding the Pet he Petitioner to have violated the provision vision of Clause 12(2) of the O e Orissa Pulses Edible Oil Seeds and and Edible Oil Dealers Licens Licensing Order, 1977 amenable him to im to the penal provision under under Section 7(c) of the E.C. Act. 10. The lea he learned counsel for the state on the the other hand submitted that t
Decision
that the impugned judgment is in accordan dance with the evidence and l and law and there is no infirmity in the in the impugned judgment which which requires interference. 11. Having h aving heard the learned counsel for the Partie Parties and upon perusal of the e f the evidence led before the learned trial co trial court as well as the findings dings recorded, this Court is of the view th iew that the sole evidence of the of the Inspector, who found the discrepancy pancy at the time of the raid, cou d, could not be substantiated by the Appella ppellant through his defence. Th ce. The trial in the case being one of quasi quasi-judicial in CRA No. 40 of 19 f 1998 Page 4 of 5 P nature and the d the Appellant having availed the opp e opportunity of adducing defenc defence evidence could not establish by docu y documents that the discrepancy pancy found in course of the raid is not in co in contravention of the relevant evant law. Consequently, the mere evidence dence contrary to the version of t n of the P.W.2 does not in any manner d nner dislodge the documentary ev lant. ary evidence proved against the Appellant. 12. In view view of the discussions made hereinabove above, while this Court does not s not find any illegality or perversity in the in the finding of guilt recorded b rded by the learned trial court against the nst the Appellant under Section 7 tion 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 19 Act, 1955, regard being had to the he facts and circumstances of the case, th ase, the nature of the offence and e and the period that has elapsed since the o e the occurrence, this Court is o t is of the opinion that the Appellant de ant deserves the benefit of the pr the provisions of the Probation of Offenders enders Act, 1958. Accordingly, w gly, while sustaining the conviction, the , the substantive sentence awarde awarded by the trial court is set aside. The A The Appellant is directed to be to be released on probation of good con d conduct under Section 4 of t of the Probation of Offenders Act, 19 ct, 1958, on his entering into a b nto a bond with one surety to the satisfaction faction of the trial court, to keep pe eep peace and be of good behaviour for a pe or a period of one year. During th ing this period, the Appellant shall remain remain under the supervision of th n of the concerned probation officer, who sh ho shall monitor his conduct and ct and submit reports to the trial court. In In default of maintaining suc ng such conduct, he shall be liable to u to undergo the sentence as imp as imposed by the trial court. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Bijay Signed by: BIJAY KETAN SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 17-Sep-2025 15:37:04 (Chittaranjan njan Dash) Judge CRA No. 40 of 19 f 1998 Page 5 of 5 P