The High Court
Case Details
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRA No. 7 of 1999 (In the matter of an application under Section 374 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code) Prakash Kumar Jena and another ……. Appellants -Versus- State of Orissa ……. Respondent For the Appellants : Ms. A. Mehta, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. S.J. Mohanty, ASC CORAM: THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Date of Hearing: 14.10.2025 : Date of Judgment: 28.10.2025 S.S. Mishra, J. The present Criminal Appeal is conjointly preferred by one Prakash Kumar Jena and Duryodhan Patra assailing the judgment and order dated 05.01.1999 passed by the learned Special Judge under E.C. Act-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Khurda convicting them under Section 7 of the E.C. Act and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for six months in T.R. No. 91 of 1996. 2. During pendency of the appeal, it has been informed to the Court by the I.I.C., Chamakhandi Police Station in its report dated 18.07.2025 that appellant no.1-Prakash Kumar Jena has expired on 14.04.2022. Therefore, in the absence of any application under Section 394 Cr.P.C. either by the L.Rs. of the deceased-appellant no.1 or by his next friend, the appeal qua him stands abated. Hence, the present appeal is only confined to appellant no.2-Duryodhan Patra. 3.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Ms. A. Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.J. Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. 4. The prosecution report in the present case narrates that on 09.05.1995 at about 1.00 P.M. P.Ws.2 and 4 while performing their enforcement work, they found a truck loaded with C.B. rice bearing Registration No. OR G 9655 parked near the Oil Orissa Premises at Khurda by-pass. The driver was present in the truck. As per the direction of the ACSO, the vehicle was inspected. The driver, who was in-charge Page 2 of 11 of the stock, was asked to produce the valid licence, purchase receipts and other valid documents in support of purchase and transportation of stock, but he failed to produce any document relating to transportation of rice. Written statement was taken from the driver. The driver Prakash Kumar Jena (deceased appellant no.1), who was in-charge of the stock, failed to disclose regarding the destination of the truck loaded with rice. In the absence of the valid document, the raiding team concluded that Prakash Kumar Jena has contravened clause-3 of Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965 and Condition 6 of the Licence, if any, issued to the consequer or the consequence of the rice stock. Being satisfied that Prakash Kumar Jena was illegally transporting the rice of Qntl.68.61 (net) of C.B. Rice in 140 bags, the prosecution report was prepared. The stock of the rice seized from the vehicle was handed over on zima to Manas Ranjan Pattnaik, Storage Agent of Khurda Block. Zimanama was also prepared and placed on record. 5. It is further alleged that from the R.C. book it was ascertained that the appellant no.2-Duryodhan Patra is the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, on 16.05.1995 notice was issued to the appellant. In reply to Page 3 of 11 the notice, the present appellant, taken a plea that the stock of 140 bags of rice belonging to two agriculturists, namely, Bijaya Behera and Satyanarayan Mishra. It is further alleged that on 27.05.1995, notices were issued to Bijaya Behera and Satyanarayan Mishra, however none of them have responded to the notices. 6. On the basis of the aforementioned allegations, Prakash Kumar Jena (since dead) and the present appellant (Duryodhan Patra) have been put to trial for the alleged commission of offence under Section 7 of the E.C. Act for having contravened clause-3 of Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965. 7. To establish the charges, the prosecution examined four witnesses. The accused-appellants, having taken a stance of complete denial, claimed trial and accordingly they were put to trial. 8. The learned trial court has proceeded to examine as to whether on the date of occurrence both the accused persons were transporting the seized rice in contravention of clause-3 of Orissa Rice and Paddy Page 4 of 11 Control Order, 1965 or not. After analysing the evidence on record, the learned trial court arrived at the following conclusion:- truck bearing “(3) From the evidence of all the witnesses except P.W.1, it appears that on 9.5.95, P.Ws.2 and 4 along with their staff while on enforcement work at Khurda registration by-pass detected a No.O.R.G.9655 standing near Oil Orissa premises loaded with 68.61 quintals of rice in 140 bags and on demand, neither the driver nor accused Duryodhan Patra, the owner of the truck could produce any authority in token of purchase and transportation of such rice. Evidence of the witnesses so far as search and seizure of 68.61 quintals of rice in 140 bags from the truck in question is concerned, is not disputed by the accused persons. Though it is suggested to prosecution witnesses that the rice in question belongs to Bijaya Behera and Satyanarayan Mishra and they were simply the carcers of those rice bags as transporters, the suggestion to P.Ws. to this effect has not been substantiated by the accused persons by either examining Satyanarayan Mishra or Bijaya Behera or even filing any document to that effect. In the premises, the plea of the accused persons that the rice in question belongs to Satyanarayan Mishra and Bijaya Behera and they were simply carrying those rice bags as transporters can hardly be accepted to be correct. On the other hand, evidence of the witnesses that these accused persons were carrying 68.61 quintals of rice in 140 bags in the truck in question in contravention of clause (3) of Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965 remains unassailed in cross-examination and there is no reason as to why the testimony of these witnesses should be disbelived. Page 5 of 11 (4) In the result, therefore, I am inclined to say that the prosecution has successfully established accused persons were carrying 68.61 quintals of C.B. rice in 140 bags in the truck in contravention of clause (3) of Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965 and as such are liable U/s.7 of the E.C. Act Hence, I find the accused persons guilty U/s.7 of the E.C.Act and convict them thereunder.” that 9. The appellants after having found guilty of offence under Section 7 of the E.C. Act were sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months. Being aggrieved on the findings recorded by the learned trial court, which led to the conviction and sentence passed against them, the appellants have challenged the same. However, during the pendency of the appeal, since appellant no.1 has died, the present appeal is confined to appellant no.2. 10. The evidence brought on record by the prosecution needs to be analysed qua the appellant no.2, particularly in the light of the fact that the seizure of the offending C.B. rice was not done or recovered from the appellant no.2. The appellant no.2 was only made an accused because the truck in which the alleged transportation of the rice was being allegedly carried out by the appellant no.1 belongs to the present appellant no.2. From the copy of the R.C. book seized from the truck the Page 6 of 11 ownership of the truck was ascertained and the appellant no.2 was put to notice. The appellant no.2 in reply to the notice had very categorically stated that the vehicle was being used for transporting the rice belonging to other persons, namely, Bijaya Behera and Satyanarayan Mishra. Surprisingly, the prosecution has not made any attempt to ascertain as to whether the rice was indeed belonging to those two persons or not. Except the seizure of copy of the R.C. book from the vehicle, there is no evidence brought on record to establish the ownership of the truck. Rather, the prosecution has relied upon the reply alleged to have been given in response to the notice issued to the appellants on 16.05.1995. First of all, admission of the accused appellant no.2 that he is the owner of the vehicle in which the C.B. rice was transported itself cannot be used as incriminating evidence against the appellant no.2. The prosecution has also not brought on record either the notice dated 16.05.1995 alleged to have been issued to the present appellant nor the reply given by him. In the absence of any oral or documentary evidence brought on record regarding the ownership of the truck, it cannot be simply presumed that the appellant no.2 was the owner of the truck. Page 7 of 11 11. In the light of the above discussion, the evidence of P.W.3 assumes importance. P.W.3 in his cross examination has stated that “he cannot say if the occupants of the truck were submitting before Mr. Hazari that Satyanarayan Mishra and Bijaya Behera were the owners of the said rice and they being farmers they were carrying the rice to Cuttack for sale in the Malgodown of Mr. A.K. Mohanty. There was some argument between Mr. Hazari and the occupants of the vehicle by the time of my arrival. From the aforementioned evidence, two things can be elucidated, firstly, the seized C.B. rice claimed to be belonging to one Satyanarayan Mishra and Bijaya Behera and secondly in the truck from which the rice was seized, there were other occupants. The prosecution has not made any attempt to establish as to who were the occupants. Similarly, P.W.4 in his testimony denied the suggestion that the driver Prakash Kumar Jena represented before him that the rice in question belonging to Bijaya Behera and Satyanarayan Mishra. He admitted that the owner of the vehicle Duryodhan Patra also made a representation stating therein that Satyanarayan Mishra and Bijaya Behera were the owners of the said rice and he was simply carrying Page 8 of 11 those as a transporter. He denied the question that the accused persons have not contravened clause-3 of Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965. 12. The statement of the accused appellant was also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. While answering query nos.4 and 6, he has stated as under:- Q.No.4- From the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses, it appears that on demand you could not produce any authority in token of purchase and transportation of such rice. What do you say? Ans. In the vehicle the agriculturist were there and what they have done I do not know. Q.No.6- Have you got anything more to say? Ans. This case is foisted to harass me. 13. P.W.1 the only independent witness has not supported the alleged recovery of C.B. rice from the possession of the present appellant and has also not implicated the appellant regarding contravention of any Page 9 of 11 provision. It is apparent from the evidence collected by the prosecution that none of the witnesses or for that matter any document indicate that the present appellant was present while the inspection of the truck was conducted by P.W.4 or any of the authorities have sought documents from the present appellant to produce the purchase and transportation document relating to the C.B. rice seized. 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bijay Kumar Agarwal vrs. State of Orissa, reported in 1996 SCC Criminal 864 has authoritatively held that mere transporting the commodity in a truck in excess of permitted limit would not amount to storing within the meaning of cause-3 of the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965. Therefore, the learned trial court in view of the settled principle of law decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court should have acquitted the appellant. However, by overlooking the decision and by showing overenthusiastic appreciated the evidence favouring the prosecution without realising that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt as against the appellant no.2. Page 10 of 11 15. In view of the foregoing reasons, I do not agree with the conclusion drawn by the learned trial court convicting the present appellant no.2 for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 7 of the E.C. Act. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.01.1999 passed by the learned Special Judge under E.C. Act-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Khurda in T.R. Case No. 91 of 1996 is set aside and the appellant no.2 is acquitted of all the charges. The bail bond furnished stands discharged. 16. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. (S.S. Mishra) Judge The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Dated the 28th October, 2025/Ashok Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 29-Oct-2025 10:46:15 Page 11 of 11