JUDGMENT

Dr. D.P. CHOUDHURY, J. - The captioned appeal assails the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.09.1992 passed by the learned Special Judge, Koraput-Jeypore in T.R. Case No.28 of 1991 under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter called the “Act”).

FACTS :

2. The factual matrix leading to the case of the prosecution is that on 28.10.1988, while the Inspector of Supplies Kotpad was patrolling on the border area, he found a truck bearing registration No.ORK-3999 standing with 100 bags of paddy at Dhanamahandi village. The Inspector of Supplies asked the driver of the truck about the stock of paddy to which the driver replied that the stock belongs to the appellant (hereinafter called the “accused”) and as per the instructions of the accused, the stock has been brought from Bansuli. The accused reached the spot and claimed the stock of paddy. Since the accused was in possession of more than 10 quintals of paddy, contravening the provisions of the Act, the Inspector of Supplies seized the said stock of paddy from the possession of the accused. During enquiry, it was further found that the accused had purchased the paddy from different persons at lesser price than fixed by the Government. After due enquiry, it is alleged by prosecution that the accused had contravened Cl.3(2) and Cl.11(aa) of the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965 (hereinafter called the “Order”), punishable under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Act. Hence, P.R. was filed against the accused.

3. Plea of the accused, as revealed from his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C. and crossexamination made to P.Ws., is that the paddy in question belongs to him, which was harvested from his paddy land. He completely denied the charge levelled against him.

4. Learned Special Judge, after examining six witnesses from the side of prosecution and two witnesses from the side of defence and after going through some documents filed by prosecution held that prosecution has not been able to prove that the accused had purchased paddy at a lesser price than fixed by the Government, but the prosecution has well proved about illegal possession of the seized paddy by the accused, in contravention of Cl.3 of the Order. So, the learned Court below convicted the accused and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months.

SUBMISSIONS :

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the order of conviction and sentence is absolutely against the law and the principles upon which the prosecution case stands. According to him, the learned Court below has not appreciated the evidence on its proper perspective inasmuch as P.Ws.3 and 4 categorically denied to have sold paddy to the accused. The learned Court below has also erred in law by not believing the defence story, which is proved by defence by adducing evidence and by not taking into consideration he sale deed filed by the accused and, as such, the impugned order is vulnerable. It was further argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned order is bad, illegal and contrary to the evidence on record. Relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Nilamani Pradhan Vs. State of Orissa reported in 2000 (II) OLR-708, he submitted that mere recovery from the transport carrier of the accused does not make out any offence. So, it is prayed by him to set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and allow the appeal.

6. On the other hand, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State submitted that the judgment passed by the learned Court below is legally correct. According to him, the decision cited by learned counsel for the appellant is not applicable to this case. While supporting the judgment and order of the learned Court below, he prayed to confirm the same and dismiss the appeal.

DISCUSSIONS :

7. The main point for consideration is whether the accused was selling the paddy in question, which w