The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRA NO.282 of 1993 (In the matter of application under Section 374(2) (Chapter-XXIX) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.). Akhaya Chandra Mohanty …. Appellant -versus- State of Orissa …. Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Sumit Lal, Amicus Curiae For Respondent : Mr. S.S. Pradhan, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY DATE OF HEARING :06.03.2023 DATE OF JUDGMENT:14.03.2023 G. Satapathy, J. 1. This is an appeal U/S.374(2) (Chapter-XXIX) of the of the Cr.P.C. read with Section 12AB of the Essential Commodities Act, 1995 (in short the E.C. Act) against the CRA No.282 of 1993 Page 1 of 9
Legal Reasoning
judgment passed on 17.08.1993 by Sri H. Mohapatra, learned Judge, Special Court, Dhenkanal-cum-Angul, at Dhenkanal in Special Case No.02 of 1989 convicting the appellant for commission of offence U/S.7 of E.C. Act and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) in default whereof to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for further period of one month. 2. The prosecution case in brief is on 15.07.1989 at about 8.30 P.M., finding the Truck bearing Registration No.OSS-6603 proceeding towards Angul side carrying Rice bags without any authority on prior information, the OIC, Jarpada P.S.(PW4) chased the Truck in his Motor Cycle, and found the Truck parked near Pampasar Forest Check Gate as the Check Gate was closed, but the driver had fled away towards jungle and, on verification, PW4 found the Truck loaded with 44 bags of Rice weighing Quintals 41 and 97Kgs and, on search of the Truck, he found and seized the aforesaid quantity of Rice along with CRA No.282 of 1993 Page 2 of 9 Cash of Rs.13,320/- (Rupees Thirteen Thousand and Three Hundred Twenty), Driving License (DL) of the convict and documents of the vehicle. After seizure, PW4 released the Rice in the Zima of Superintendent of Ware Housing Corporation and the Truck with its owner and, accordingly, PW4 registered a FIR against the convict for commission of offence U/S.7 of E.C. Act for transporting the Rice in contravention of Clause-3 of Orissa Rice Movement Control Order, 1964. On conclusion of investigation, PW4 submitted charge-sheet against the convict for offence U/S.7 of E.C. Act. resulting in trial in the present case. 2.1. Although, PW4 had submitted charge-sheet against the convict for contravention of Clase-3 of Orissa Rice Movement Control Order, 1964, but after finding sufficient materials for contravention of Clause-3 of the Orissa Rice (Movement Control Order, 1964) in violation of Clause-3 of the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965, the learned trial Court took cognizance of offence CRA No.282 of 1993 Page 3 of 9 U/S.7 of E.C. Act and the convict was sent up for trial in this case. The prosecution in support of its case examined four witnesses and relied upon the documents under Exts.1 to 5 as against the oral evidence of one witness and documentary evidence of Ext.A to J by the defence. After appreciating the evidence upon hearing the parties, the learned trial Court found the appellant guilty of the offence U/S.7 of E.C. Act and sentenced him to the punishment indicated supra. Hence, this appeal. 3. In the course of hearing of the appeal, Mr. Sumit Lal, learned Amicus Curiae straight away has challenged the conviction of the appellant by relying upon the decision in Pratap Rudra Mishra Vrs. Susanta Kumar Hota; MANU/OR/0174/2000 (Criminal Misc. Case No.979 of 2000), by interalia submitting that the transportation of Rice by the convict in this case would never amount to commission of any offence in view of the fact that transportation of paddy in a Truck does not amount to “storage” attracting violation of Clause-3 read CRA No.282 of 1993 Page 4 of 9 with Clause-2(b) of the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965 and, thereby, ultimately not attracting the offence U/S.7 of E.C. Act against the convict in this case. It is further submitted by him that even the act alleged against the appellant does not amount to commission of any offence, the conviction of the appellant thereby is unsustainable in the eye of law and liable to be set-aside. Learned Amicus Curiae has accordingly prayed to allow the appeal. 4. In resisting the claim of the learned Amicus Curiae, Mr. S.S. Pradhan, learned AGA, however, taking through the facts of the case has submitted that the act of transportation of Rice in the Truck without any authority, amounts to commission of offence U/S.7 of E.C. Act and, thereby, the conviction of the appellant cannot be faulted with. Learned AGA has accordingly prayed to dismiss the appeal. 5. After carefully bestowing consideration to the rival submissions, this Court without appreciating the CRA No.282 of 1993 Page 5 of 9 evidence on record, considers it apt to examine the legality of the act of the appellant for falling within the ambit and scope of offence U/S.7 of E.C. Act. For the sake of argument, let us consider the act of the appellant which has been considered by the learned Special Court, Dhenkanal to be fallen within the mischief of Section 7 of E.C. Act. In this case, the allegation and evidence on record discloses that the appellant was the driver of the Truck in which the OIC, Jarpada P.S. (P.W.4) found 44 bags of Rice and Cash of Rs.13,320/- (Rupees Thirteen Thousand and Three Hundred Twenty) and the convict was transporting the aforesaid quantity of rice at the relevant time. In the course of argument, learned Amicus Curiae by taking this Court through the order sheet dated 26.09.1989 has pointed out the fact that the learned trial Court by this order had directed for return of the seized cash to the person from whom it was seized on giving an equivalent amount of security bond. It is also not disputed that the learned trial Court has taken cognizance CRA No.282 of 1993 Page 6 of 9 of offence U/S.7 of E.C. Act for contravention of the provision of Clause-3 of the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965 in this case, notwithstanding to the fact that P.W.4 had lodged FIR and submit charge-sheet against the appellant for offence U/S.7 of E.C. Act for contravention of Clause-3 of Orissa Rice Movement Control Order, 1964. 6. In order to address the argument of the appellant, this Court considers it expedient refer to the decision in the case of Bijaya Kumar Agarwala Vrs. State of Orissa; (1996) 11 OCR (SC) 573 wherein answering to a similar question, “whether paddy loaded in a Truck in excess of permissible limit while in transit can be deemed to be ‘stored’ within the meaning of the word ‘storage’ used in the aforesaid control order”, the Apex Court has held that by itself cannot amount to ‘storing’ of goods by interpreting Clause-3 of Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965 and referring to the dictionary meaning of the word ‘store’ from Black’s Law CRA No.282 of 1993 Page 7 of 9 Dictionary, Webster’s Comprehensive Dictionary, (International Edition) and Concise Oxford Dictionary and, accordingly, set-aside the conviction of the appellant for offence U/S.7 of E.C. Act, on the ground that such transportation of rice does not amount to storage as contemplated in the Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965. 7. In the decision relied upon by the learned Amicus Curiae in Pratap Rudra Mishra (supra), our High Court after referring to the decision in Bijaya Kumar Agarwala (supra) has been pleased to held as under: “In the present case, as per the statement of the driver as well as the owner of the truck, it appears that the paddy in question was being transported from one place to another and there is no material to indicate that the paddy kept in the truck was being used as a ‘storage’ for being sold at different points. Mere transaction does not contravene the Control Order and therefore, no the Essential offence Under Section 7 of Commodities Act is made out.” 8. In view of the above discussion of facts made hereinabove and taking into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court in Bijaya Kumar Agarwala (supra), the contention raised by the learned Amicus CRA No.282 of 1993 Page 8 of 9 Curiae deserves consideration and, thereby, the conviction of the appellant for offence U/S.7 of E.C. Act is found to be unsustainable in the eye of law. 9. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed on contest,
Decision
but in the circumstance, there is no order as to costs. As a logical sequitur, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the appellant passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Dhenkanal-cum-Angul, at Dhenkanal in Special Case No.02 of 1989 are hereby set aside. The appellant is discharged of his bail bonds in this case. (G. Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 14 th day of March, 2023/Subhasmita CRA No.282 of 1993 Page 9 of 9