1981 Supreme(Ori) 162
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
J.K. Mohanty, J.
KOTAKOTA GOPALAM - APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF ORISSA - RESPONDENT
Criminal Revision No. 386 of 1980
Decided On : 01-12-1981
Y.S.N. Murty and D.P. Choudhury, for the Appellant; Standing Counsel, for the Respondent
A person cannot be convicted for an offense that they were not charged with and had no opportunity to defend themselves against.
Headnote:
ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT - ORISSA COARSE GRAINS (MOVEMENT CONTROL) ORDER, 1966 - ORISSA FOODGRAIN DEALER'S LICENSING ORDER, 1964 - Conviction for contravention of Clause 3 of the Licensing Order of 1964 - Legality.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was found in possession of 20 quintals of ragi without a valid permit, in violation of Clause 3 of the Orissa Coarse Grains (Movement Control) Order, 1966. However, the trial court convicted him for contravention of Clause 3 of the Orissa Foodgrain Dealer's Licensing Order, 1964, which requires dealers to obtain a license for storing foodgrains in certain quantities.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner could not be convicted for contravention of Clause 3 of the Licensing Order of 1964 because he was not charged with that offense and had no opportunity to defend himself against it. The court also found that the petitioner was not a dealer within the meaning of the Licensing Order of 1964, as he was a cultivator who did not engage in the business of purchase, sale, or storage for sale of foodgrains.
Issues: 1. Whether a person charged for contravention of Clause 3 of the Orissa Coarse Grains (Movement Control) Order, 1966 can be convicted for violation of Clause 3 of the Orissa Foodgrain Dealer's Licensing Order, 1964? 2. Whether the petitioner was a dealer within the meaning of the Licensing Order of 1964?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A person cannot be convicted for an offense that they were not charged with and had no opportunity to defend themselves against. 2. A cultivator who does not engage in the business of purchase, sale, or storage for sale of foodgrains is not a dealer within the meaning of the Licensing Order of 1964.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petition, set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner, and acquitted him.
JUDGMENT :
J.K. Mohanty, J. - The point raised in this case is whether a person charged for contravention of Clause 3 of the Orissa Coarse Grains (Movement Control) Order, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Movement Control Order of 1966') can be convicted for violation of Clause 3 of the Orissa Foodgrain Dealer's Licensing Order, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Licensing Order of 1964').
2. The case against the Petitioner is that on 22-2-1975 the Officer-in-charge of Padwa police-station on receipt of reliable information about the storage of ragi by the Petitioner in his house, proceeded to village Kantasaru and searched the house. He found 20 bags of ragi measuring 20 quintals and seized the same vide, seizure list (Ext. 1). After completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the Petitioner. The learned Magistrate framed charge against the Petitioner in the following manner:
That you on or about the 22nd day of February, 1975 at 11. a.m. at Kantasaru found in possession of 20 quintals of ragi to export the same to Andhra Pradesh without valid permit as required under Clause 3 of Orissa Coarse Grains (Movement Control) Order, 1966 and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 7 of the E.C. Act read with Clause 3 of the Orissa Coarse Grains (Movement Control) Order, 1966 within my cognizance and I hereby direct that you be tried on the said charges.
After considering the evidence on record the learned Magistrate held that the Petitioner is not guilty for contravention of Clause 3 of the Movement Control Order of 1966. He however, held the Petitioner guilty for contravention of Clause 3 of the Licensing Order of 1964.
3. Clause 3 of the Movement Control Order of 1966 is as follows:
No person shall export or attempt to export or a bet the export of coarse grains except under and in accordance with a permit issued by the State Government or by any officer in that behalf by the State Government:
Provided that nothing contained in this clause shall apply to the export of coarse grains:
(1) not exceeding one kilogramme in weight of each of the coarse grains by a bona fide traveller as part of his luggage; or
(2) on Government account; or
(3) under and in accordance with military credit note:
Provided further it shall be lawful for a person to export coarse grains, being the produce of his land lying within the State of Orissa for bona fide consumption by himself and other members of his family in a place outside the said State under and in accordance with a permit issued by the State Government or by any officer authorised in that behalf by the State Government.
'Export' has been defined in Clause 2(a) of the said order to mean:
'export' means to take or cause to be taken out of any place within the State of Orissa to any place outside it;
Clause 3 of the Licensing Order of 1964 runs thus:
3. Licensing of Dealers: (1) No person shall carry on business as a dealer except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a licence issued in this behalf by the licensing authority.
(2) For the purpose of this clause any person who stores any foodgrains in quantity of ten quintals or m ore of anyone of foodgrains or twenty-five quintals or more of all the foodgrains taken together at anyone time shall, unless the contrary is proved, be deemed to be a dealer.
(3) Without prejudice to the obligation to comply with terms and conditions specified in the licence, every licensee, if he is a licensed wholesaler (other than such wholesaler selling wheat products in his own licensed roller flour mill) shall, if and when required by the licensing authority so as to do, sell foodgrains to only such retailers including himself, (if he also sells in retail) as are under the orders of such authority registered with him and all such sales shall be in accordance with such directions as the licensing authority or any officer authorised by that authority in this behalf may give from time to time.
(4) For the purpose of Sub-clause (3), th