The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRA No.294 of 1991 In the matter of an Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and from the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 8th November, 1991 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Sambalpur in T.R. Case No.7 of 1987. ---- 1 Chandrabhanu Agrawal; and 2. Shib Kumar Agrawal -versus- …. Appellants State of Orissa …. Respondent Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode): For Appellants -
Legal Reasoning
Mr.Suvam Sharma (Advocate) For Respondent - Mr.P.K. Mohanty, Additional Standing Counsel CORAM MR. JUSTICE D.DASH Date of Hearing : 25.06.2024 : Date of Judgment : 01.07.2024 D.Dash,J. The Appellants, by filing this Appeal, have called in question the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 8th November, 1991 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Sambalpur in T.R. Case No.7 of 1987. By the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the Appellants (accused persons) having been convicted CRA No.294 of 1991 Page 1 of 6 for commission of the offence under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the E.C. Act’) for violating Clause-3 of Orissa Declaration of Stocks and Price of Essential Commodities Order, (for short, ‘the Control Order’), have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three (3) months and pay fine of Rs.500/- each in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one (1) month. 2. Prosecution Case:- On 05.12.1990, the Inspector of Supplies, Jharsuguda (P.W.2) along with staffs visited the grocery shop of accused Chandrabhau situated at Gumadera and found accused Shib Kumar selling articles in the shop of Chandrabhanu. It is alleged that though there are stock of Onion, Potatoes, Soda, Ground-nut etc. The stocks of those articles were not shown in the board displayed in the shop for declaration of the stocks of prices of the essential commodities. The Inspector of Supplies (P.W.2) also found that there was 11 quintals 47 kgs and 500 grams of rice in the shop of accused Chandrabhanu without any license for storing more than 10 quintals. P.W.2, therefore, submitted the Prosecution Report (P.R.) against these accused persons for violation of Clause-3 of the 1973 Order. The Trial Court on analysis of the evidence let in by the prosecution and the defence and on examination of the CRLA No.294 of 1991 Page 2 of 6 documents admitted in evidence, has found this accused guilty for commission of the offence under section 7 of the E.C. Act for violation of clause 3 of 1973 Order and sentenced as afore-stated. 3. Learned counsel for the Appellants (accused persons) submitted that the Trial is vitiated for non-compliance of the provision contained in section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the Code’) read with section 262 of the Code in its letter and spirit as mandated under law. Inviting the attention of this Court to the order dated 24.02.1988 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, he stated that the same is not in compliance of the provision contained in section 251 read with section 262 of the Code and, therefore, the accused persons, having been highly prejudiced, the outcome of the Trial based on such order cannot be sustained. 4. Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Respondent- State submitted that the order when is read as a whole would show substantial compliance of the provision contained in section 251 read with section 262 of the Code and the Court should refrain from taking a hyper technical approach in arriving at the conclusion as regards the compliance of the provision contained in section 251 of the Code. CRLA No.294 of 1991 Page 3 of 6 5. Keeping in view the submissions made; I have carefully read the order dated 24.02.1988, which was been passed by the Trial Court as in adherence to the provisions of Section 251 & 262 of the Code. 6. As provided in Clause-f of Sub-section 1 of section 12-AA of E.C. Act, all the offences under the Act are to be tried in a summary way and the provisions contained in section 262 to 265 (both inclusive) of the Code shall as far as may be, apply to such trial, when there shall not be the requirement to frame charge. The provision contained in Sub-section 1 of Section 262 of the Code says that the procedures for trial of the summons-case shall be followed. Therefore, the legal need stands for compliance of the provision of section 251 of the Code for commencement of the Trial. It reads that the accused person/s when appear/s or is/are brought before the Magistrate, the particulars of the offence of which, he/they are accused of have to be stated to him/them and then he/they is/are required to be asked whether he/they pleads/plead guilty or has/have any defence to make. In the backdrop of the above, the order dated 24.02.1988, being gone through, it is found to have been simply noted that the particulars of the offences under section 7 of the E.C. Act are read over and explained to the accused persons, who pleaded not guilty. CRLA No.294 of 1991 Page 4 of 6 Section 7 of the E.C. Act provides the penalty for contravention of any order made under section 3 of the E.C. Act. In the case at hand, the contravention, as alleged is in relation to the Clause 3 of the Control Order, which provides that Every retailer shall display prominently in the business premises, shops or show rooms, the stock position of each essential commodity in his possession by writing on a Board the words "available" or "not available", as the case may be, against each such commodity and retail selling prices thereof each day and indicate on each unit of item of the said commodities, where possible the sale price by having the sale price either printed on the commodities or on the container or packet thereof or by means of rubber stamp or by sticking a label on such commodities. As per the prosecution case, these accused persons were was in possession of the rice having the required license. The order in question reads as under:- “Hence, particular of offences under section 7 of the E.C. Act read over and explained to the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.” A bare reading of the aforesaid order would reveal that the provision of section 251 of the Code has not at all been complied with in as much as the relevant clause of the relevant Control Order for whose violation the accused persons are said to have committed the offences under section 7 of the E.C. Act has not CRLA No.294 of 1991 Page 5 of 6 neither been mentioned nor even the facts, which constitute such violation of the order are stated therein. In that view of the matter, for non-compliance of the provision of section 251 read with section 262 of the Code, the prejudice to the accused persons is writ large and thus, the outcome in the Trial wherein the Trial Court has passed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence cannot be sustained as the Trial stands wholly vitiated. 7. For the said reason, in my view the judgment of conviction and order of sentence challenged in this Appeal cannot be sustained. Since in the given case, it is found that the offence, being said to have been committed on 08.06.1985, the trial stood concluded on 08.11.1991 and as by now, there has been lapse of more than 39 years and 6 months, in my considered opinion, it would not serve the ends of justice, at this distance of time to pass an order for retrial in meeting the ends of justice. 8. In the result, the Appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 8th November, 1991 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Sambalpur in T.R. Case No.7 of 1987, are hereby set aside. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV NAYAK Basu Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK Date: 04-Jul-2024 14:56:15 CRLA No.294 of 1991 (D. Dash), Judge. Page 6 of 6