The High Court
Case Details
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRA No.106 of 2000 & CRA No.110 of 2000 (In the matter of an application under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973) CRA No.106 of 2000 Sudhansu Sekhar Behera ……. Appellant -Versus- State of Orissa ……. Respondent For the Appellant : Mr. Janmejaya Katakia, Amicus Curiae For the Respondent : Mr. Ashok Kumar Apat, AGA CRA No.110 of 2000 Saroj Kumar Pradhan and another ……. Appellants -Versus- State of Orissa ……. Respondent For the Appellants : Mr. Janmejaya Katakia, Amicus Curiae For the Respondent : Mr. Ashok Kumar Apat, AGA CORAM: THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Date of Hearing: 06.11.2025 :: Date of Judgment: 11.11.2025 S.S. Mishra, J. Since both the appeals are arising out of a common impugned judgment, therefore, the same were analogously heard and judgment was reserved. In the instant case, out of five accused persons, three accused persons have been convicted by the learned Special Judge-cum- Additional Sessions Judge, Rairangpur vide impugned judgment and order dated 26.04.2000 in G.R. Case No.406 of 1997 (T.C. No.8/98) for alleged commission of offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (for short “E.C. Act”) in lieu of the contravention of Clause 3(1) of Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Act and Section 8 of the E.C. Act, 1955. On that count, they are sentenced to undergo R.I. for three months each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for fifteen days. Page 2 of 17 2. The present appeals are pending since 08.05.2000 and 11.05.2000 respectively. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 15.07.2025, none had appeared on behalf of the appellants. Therefore, this Court
Legal Reasoning
requested Mr. Janmejaya Katakia, 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. Katakia. 3. Heard Mr. Janmejaya Katakia, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellants and Mr. Ashok Kumar Apat, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. 4. It is relevant to mention that during pendency of the present appeal, the appellant No.2 in CRA No.110 of 2000, namely, Narahari Mohanta has expired on 05.08.2008. Therefore, CRA No.110 of 2000 qua the appellant No.2- Narahari Mohanta stood abated in the absence of any application under Section 394 Cr.P.C. by the legal heirs or next friend of the deceased-appellant. Hence, the appeal is considered only in Page 3 of 17 respect of appellant No.1, namely, Saroj Kumar Pradhan in CRA No.110 of 2000. 5. The prosecution set the criminal law into motion against the five accused persons pursuant to the registration of Rairangpur Rural P.S. Case No.57 of 1997 on 02.11.1997. The prosecution case in terse and brief is that: (a) On 01.11.1997, distribution of APL and BPL rice was being carried out by the supply department employees, namely, Sudhansu Sekhar Behera, Rajendra Kumar Behera, and Santosh Kumar Barik. The rice was being sold at the rate of ₹2/- per kilogram. It is alleged that the accused, Saroj Kumar Pradhan, unlawfully removed 6.68 kilograms of rice and kept the same in the residential quarter of his wife, Smt. Sumati Patra, who was serving as an ANM. Consequently, several persons of the concerned Gram Panchayat were deprived of their due share of rice. When the villagers questioned the accused regarding the said act, he allegedly threatened them. Thereafter, the villagers lodged a written report at Rairangpur (Rural) Police Station. Page 4 of 17 (b) Upon receipt of the report, on 02.11.1997, the Officer-in- Charge of Rairangpur (Rural) Police Station registered the case and took up investigation. During investigation, on 03.11.1997, the Investigating Officer seized 5.80 kilograms of rice produced by the informant, Iswar Chandra Behera, which had been lying in front of the ANM quarter of Smt. Sumati Patra, vide Seizure List (Ext.5/1). On 05.11.1997 at about 11:00 A.M., 18 consumer identity cards were seized from the informant vide Seizure List (Ext. 5/1). The Investigating Officer also seized a plain paper containing certain writings with the name of the accused, Saroj Kumar Pradhan, written below (Ext. 3/1). (c) Further, the Tally Register of Mobile Van No. OR-02/F-8936, along with the APL and BPL sales registers, cash book, and other relevant documents, were seized from accused Sudhansu Sekhar Behera. The said mobile van was subsequently released on zimanama (Ext. 19). The Investigating Officer requested the Collector, Baripada, for confiscation of the seized rice. (d) Subsequently, on 03.01.1998, 78 kilograms of rice were further seized from the quarter of Smt. Sumati Patra vide Seizure List Page 5 of 17 (Ext. 6/1). On the transfer of P.W.16, the investigation was handed over to P.W.13, Sukadev Mandal, on 14.04.1998. On 17.04.1998, he seized additional consumer cards in connection with the case. (e) During investigation, it was revealed that certain consumer cards, namely Nos. 238696, 238840, 238841, 238699, 238849, 238837, 238836, 238847, and 238848, did not bear the genuine signature of the then B.D.O., Rairangpur Block, and that his signature had been forged on those cards. The remaining consumer cards were found to bear the authentic signature of the said B.D.O. After completion of investigation, the I.O. submitted charge sheet against the accused persons under Section 7 of the E.C. Act as they had contravened Section 3(1) of Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order and Clause 8 of the Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965. Charges were framed and on the stance of complete denial and claim of trial, they were put to trial. 6. The prosecution examined as many as sixteen witnesses to substantiate its case. Out of whom, P.Ws.3, 4, 5 and 6 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. Their testimony in no way could be Page 6 of 17 beneficial to the prosecution as they completely denied to have any knowledge regarding the incident. However, P.Ws.1, 2, 7, 8 and 11 are the crucial witnesses for the prosecution. P.Ws.1 and 2 have implicated the government official namely the appellant in CRA No.106 of 2000 as well as the appellants in CRA No.110 of 2000 whereas P.Ws.7, 8 and 11 have only implicated the appellants in CRA No.110 of 2000 and they have not stated anything regarding the appellant namely Sudhansu Sekhar Behera. 7. Mr. Katakia, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants while arguing for the appellant namely-Sudhansu Sekhar Behera in CRA No.106 of 2000 has submitted that the appellant was a government servant at the time of incident. From the allegation and the prosecution evidence, it is apparent that he has been implicated in the present case as while discharging his official duty, he has committed the alleged offence. Mr. Katakia, learned counsel pointed out Section 15(A) of the E.C. Act and submitted that in absence of valid sanction, the said accused could not have been prosecuted. He further submitted that the learned trial Court has completely gone wrong in appreciating this aspect Page 7 of 17 of the matter. He has read out paragraph-8 of the impugned judgment, which reads as follows:- in to act “8. In course of argument the Learned Counsel for the Defence contended that Sections must be obtained U/S 15-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 to launch a Prosecution case against one Public Servant, Section 15-A of E.C. Act written by Sri Mahendra Kumar Das, 1999 Edition (A complete Hand Book of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955) shown that:- "15-A, Prosecution of Public servant-where any person who is a public servant is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him the while acting or supporting discharge of his duty in pursuance of an order made under Sec.3, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction. (a) of the Central Government, in the case of a person who is employed, or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of the Union; (b) of the State Government, in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, or at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed in connection with the affairs of the State". So there shall be sanction if any public servant will be prosecuted in discharging on his duty in pursuance of an order made U/S 3 of the E.C. Act. However, in this instant case accused Sudhansu Sekhar Behera had obtained 18 Nos. Page 8 of 17 of consumer cards (APL & BPL) at a time from accused Saroj Kr.Pradhan and accordingly he had given Q.6.58 kgs of rice to accused Saroj Kumar Pradhan. It was the duty of Sudhansu Sekhar Behera to give the rice by one card and the card must be in the name of the consumer concerned. Instead of giving the rice in one card, accused Sudhansu Sekhar Behera had given the seized rice in huge quantity to accused Saroj Kr. Pradhan. Hence it is clear that knowing fully well he had given Q.6.58 kgs of rice to accused Saroj Kumar Pradhan. Hence it is also clear that intentionally he committed the offence by giving rice to accused Saroj. Kumar Pradhan. So contravening Sec. 3 of E.C.Act he had given the rice and has been done by his own know- ledge. Hence sanction is not required U/S 15-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 to prosecute the accused, Sudhansu Sekhar Behera though he is a public servant. Apart from that the learned counsel for the Defence has not put any question to the I.O. that accused Sudhansı Sekhar Behera is a public servant. In this instant case accused Rajendra Behera was the weighman of Supply Department and accused Santosh Kumar Barik was the driver of the mobile van of Supply Department. On 1.11.97 accused Santosh Kumar Barik has taken the rice in Supply Department vehicle by driving it. So also accused Rajendra Behera was weighing the rice at the sales centre. So at the direction of accused Sıdhansı Sekhar Behera, Sales Asst. accused Rajendra Behera, weighman was supplying the rice to the consumers. So he is no way responsible for the supply of rice to the Page 9 of 17 other accused persons. So also accused Santosh Kumar Barik is no way responsible for the supply of rice to Saroj Kumar Pradhan. P.W.1 has already stated in his evidence that accused Sudhansu Sekhar Behera issued rice to accused Saroj Kumar Pradhan after Verifying the consumer cards. So it is clear that accused Saroj Kr. Pradhan had given 18 Nos. of consumer cards to accused-Sudhansı Sekhar Behera and accused Sıdhansu Sekhar Behera had given Q.6.58 kgs of rice at a time to accused Saroj Kr.Pradhan. If the rice in question might have not been given to accused Saroj Kumar Pradhan then how at a time Q.6.58 kgs of rice was recovered from the quarter of A. N.M., Sumati Patra wife of accused Saroj Kumar Pradhan and if at all accused Saroj Kumar Pradhan might have not taken the huge quantity of APL and BPL rice then why the villagers will go against him and others and gave F.I.R. at the Police Station. Hence it is clear that accused Sarój Kumar Pradhan had taken Q.6.58kgs of rice on 1.11.97 from accused Sudhansı Sekhar Behera by accused Narahari Mohanta, Ex-Secretary of Sanpukhana G.P.” 8. From the evidence on record, it is undoubted that the appellant- Sudhansu Sekhar Behera was a government servant, who had gone to distribute rice in the mobile van of the supply department on 01.11.1997. While discharging his official function, Mr. Behera has committed the offence by wrongfully delivering Q.6.58 kgs. of rice to the co-accused- Page 10 of 17 Saroj Kumar Pradhan. Therefore, the conduct of the appellant squarely comes under “the colour of duty”. Hence, the learned trial Court’s reasoning as recorded in paragraph-8 which is reproduced hereinabove sounds illogical and appears to be completely de hors the command of law under Section 15(A) of the E.C. Act. The statutory protection under Section 15(A) of the E.C. Act ought to have been given to the appellant as he was performing his official duty and the alleged crime has taken place during the discharge of his official function. Therefore, I am of the view that the prosecution launched against the appellant-Sudhansu Sekhar Behera and cognizance has been taken against him for the offence under Section 7 of the E.C. Act without valid sanction under Section 15(A) of the E.C. Act vitiates the entire criminal prosecution. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order dated 26.04.2000 passed by the learned trial Court qua the said appellant is not sustainable under law. 9. Accordingly, CRA No.106 of 2000 filed by the appellant Sudhansu Sekhar Behera, who was the government servant, stands Page 11 of 17 allowed and he has been acquitted from all the charges. The bail bond furnished stands discharged. 10. In so far as the other appellant namely Saroj Kumar Pradhan in CRA No.110 of 2000 is concerned, the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 7, 8 and 9 are very clear and all the witnesses have very categorically implicated the said appellant. The witnesses have sustained extensive cross- examination. Their evidences are trustworthy and nothing could be elucidated from their evidence by the defence to derive benefit. The learned trial Court by detailed appreciation of the evidence has arrived at the following findings:- “In this instant case already I have discussed that accused Saroj Pradhan had taken the rice of 06.58 kg from the Supply deptt. by showing 16 nos of seized consumer cards and out of the 18 cards had accused Narahari Mohana the B.D.O. the signatures of manipulated Raingpur i.e. Ext. 18 to 18/8. Hence, it is clear that without obtained the licence from the competent authority they both received the rice in question from accused Sudhansu Sekhar Behera of course the accused person have denied the alleged occurrence. Here denial is not sufficient to escape from the Criminal liability. It was the duty of the accused persons to prove strictly that no rice and cards have been Page 12 of 17 seized from them. Hence it is difficult on my part to believe the plea of the accused person. The learned counsel for the defence cited O.C.R. 1998 page 726 decided by the Hon'ble Justice L. Rath, in para-1 his lordship has observed that. "in the prosecution report by the marketing inspector no mention is made as to how the offence had been committed except stating that the petitioner was guilty of offence under Sec.-7- A of the Act. Though the prosecution says that an offence under Sec. 7A had been committed under essential commodities Act does not mentioned any such penal sec.7 of the Act deals with penalties and under subsection (1) it is provided that a person commits the offence when the contravention of any order made under sec. 3 of the act. The prosecution report not show which order made under sec.3 was contravened in invite the penalties. But in this instant case accused Saroj Pradhan had received 06.58kg. of rice from Sudhansu Sekhar Behera and it is clear that the accused had received and stored the rice in question for sale by taking it from Sudhansu Sekhar Behera. Apart from that the fact of this case is quite different to this instant case. Further the learned counsel for the defence cited C.L.T. 1986 page 377 decided by the Hon'ble Justice G.B.Patnaik, In para-3 his lordship has observed that: “Essential Commodities Act, 1955-Section- not 7(1)(a)(ii)-Conviction stored rice in his premises (not a place in border area) exceeding ten quintals. No contravention under-Petitioner Page 13 of 17 of clause 3 of Orissa Rice and paddy control order 1965 Conviction set aside". No doubt in this instant case accused Saroj Ku Pradhan had received the seized rice from the supply deptt. and had stored in the quarter of his wife. No doubt he had kept less than 10 qtls. of rice but the said rice was meant for APL & BPL consumers of the G.P. Hence accused Saroj Ku. Pradhan had no right to receive those seized rice from the Supply deptt. The learned Counsel for defence cited C.L.T. 1986 at page 656 decided by the Hon'ble Justice K.P.Mohapatra. His lordship has observed that "Essential commodities Act, 1955 section 7(1) (a) offence under for contravention of clause 3 of the Orissa Declaration of stocks and prices of Essential commodities order,-Ingredients to be proved. The expression “carrying on business” does not mean any stray act or any sporadic act. The prosecution is to establish that the accused carried on business in essential commodities. The evidence both oral and documentary shows that there was stock of till oil and torch cells in the grocery shop of the petitioner. Mere existence of stock does not ipso facto prove that the petitioner carried on business in regular course in these essential commodities. The element of continuity of the business must be established in order to attract the provisions of clause 3 of the order which is lacking in this case. The facts of the case is quite different to this instant case.” Page 14 of 17 Reading of the aforementioned findings recorded by the learned trial Court leads to the only inference that enough evidence which has come on record to suggest that the appellant, Saroj Kumar Pradhan has illegally received Q.6.58 kgs. of rice, which was meant for distribution to APL and BPL categories of customers those who are poor villagers. His conduct as reflecting from the evidence of the witnesses directly violates Clause-3(1) of Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Act, as such, it attracts Section 7 of the E.C. Act. Therefore, I have no hesitation to affirm the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Court as against the appellant-Saroj Kumar Pradhan. Hence, the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court against the appellant, Saroj Kumar Pradhan stands affirmed. 11. At this stage, Mr. Katakia, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant submitted that the incident relates back to the year 1997. At that point in time, the appellant, Saroj Kumar Pradhan was thirty-six years of age. At present he is sixty-four years of age and leading a respectful life along with his family. He further submitted that the appellant has no criminal antecedents and no other case of a similar Page 15 of 17 nature or otherwise is stated to be pending against him. Over the years, he has led a dignified life, integrated well into society, and is presently leading a settled family life. Incarcerating him after such a long delay, it is argued, would serve little penological purpose and may in fact be counter-productive, casting a needless stigma not only upon him but also upon his family members, especially when there is no suggestion of any repeat violation or ongoing non-compliance with regulatory norms. Therefore, in the fitness of situation, the appellant may be extended the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act read with Section 360 Cr. P.C. 12. In such view of the matter, the present CRA No.110 of 2000 in so far as the conviction is concerned is turned down. But instead of sentencing the appellant to suffer imprisonment, this Court directs the appellant- Saroj Kumar Pradhan to be released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act for a period of three months on his executing bond of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) within one month with one surety for the like amount to appear and receive the sentence when called upon during such period and in the meantime, the appellant shall keep peace and good behavior and he shall remain under the supervision of Page 16 of 17 the concerned Probation Officer during the aforementioned period of three months. 13. Accordingly, CRA No.106 of 2000 is allowed whereas CRA No.110 of 2000 is partly allowed. 14. This Court acknowledges the effective and meaningful assistance rendered by Mr. Janmejaya Katikia, 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 11th November, 2025/ Swarna Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SWARNAPRAVA DASH Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 14-Nov-2025 19:37:28 Page 17 of 17