Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
J.K. Mohanty, J.
STATE OF ORISSA - APPELLANT
Versus
BALARAM SAHU - RESPONDENT
Decided On : 01-10-1981
ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT - SECTION 7 - ORISSA DECLARATION OF STOCKS AND PRICE OF ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ORDER, 1973 - CLAUSE 3 - ORISSA ESSENTIAL FOODSTUFFS (PREVENTION OF HOARDING AND REQUISITIONING OF STOCKS) ORDER, 1974 - CLAUSE 3 - DISPLAY OF STOCK POSITION AND RETAIL PRICE - INTERPRETATION OF 'GROUNDNUT SEEDS' - QUANTITY LIMIT - VIOLATION - CONVICTION - APPEAL.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was charged with contravening Clause 3 of the Orissa Declaration of Stocks and Price of Essential Commodities Order, 1973, and Clause 3 of the Orissa Essential Foodstuffs (Prevention of Hoarding and Requisitioning of Stocks) Order, 1974. He was convicted and sentenced to 15 days' imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300 for contravening Clause 3 of the 1973 Order, but acquitted of the charge related to the 1974 Order. The accused appealed the conviction, and the State appealed the acquittal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused was not guilty of contravening Clause 3 of the 1973 Order because the supply staff arrived at the shop when it was just being opened, and he did not have time to make the required entries in the board indicating the opening stock and retail prices. The court also found that the prosecution failed to establish that the accused had kept groundnut seeds more than the prescribed limit in the shop, as the term 'groundnut seeds' in the 1974 Order referred only to the seeds inside the groundnut, not the whole groundnut with the cover.
Issues: 1. Whether the accused violated Clause 3 of the Orissa Declaration of Stocks and Price of Essential Commodities Order, 1973, by failing to display the stock position and retail price of essential commodities? 2. Whether the accused violated Clause 3 of the Orissa Essential Foodstuffs (Prevention of Hoarding and Requisitioning of Stocks) Order, 1974, by keeping groundnut seeds in excess of the prescribed limit?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the accused could not be held guilty of contravening Clause 3 of the 1973 Order because the supply staff arrived at the shop when it was just being opened, and he did not have time to make the required entries in the board indicating the opening stock and retail prices. 2. The court held that the prosecution failed to establish that the accused had kept groundnut seeds more than the prescribed limit in the shop, as the term 'groundnut seeds' in the 1974 Order referred only to the seeds inside the groundnut, not the whole groundnut with the cover.
Final Decision: The court allowed the accused's appeal and set aside his conviction and sentence. The court also dismissed the State's appeal against the acquittal of the accused for contravening Clause 3 of the 1974 Order.
JUDGMENT :
J.K. Mohanty, J. - The accused was charged u/s 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter called the 'Act') for contravention of Clause 3 of the Orissa Declaration of Stocks and Price of Essential Commodities Order, 1973 (hereinafter called the 'Order of 1973') and also for contravention of Clause 3 of the Orissa Essential Foodstuffs (Prevention of Hoarding and Requisitioning of Stocks) Order, 1974 (hereinafter called the "Order of 1974"). He was tried in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jajpur who convicted' him u/s 7(1)(a)(i) of the Act for contravention of Clause 3 of the Order of 1973 and sentenced him to R.I. for 15 days and to pay fine of Rs. 300/- in default to S.I. for one week. The learned Magistrate however acquitted him of the charge for contravention of Clause 3 of the Order of 1974. Against the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence the accused preferred an appeal in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Cuttack and against that part of the order by which the accused was not found guilty for contravention of Clause 3 of the Order of 1974 the State filed Government Appeal No. 5/78 before this Court. By order of this Court the records of the Criminal Appeal filed by the accused in the Court of the Sessions Judge was called for and numbered as Criminal Appeal No. 23/78. The Government Appeal and the Criminal Appeal were heard together and this common judgment will govern both the cases.
2. The case of the prosecution is as follows: M/s. Kailash Chandra Sahu and Umesh Chandra Sahu were having a grocery shop at Dhanmandal station bazar. Prosecution alleges that the accused was the Manager of the shop and was looking after the business. On 24-5-1974 at about 10.00 a.m. the Supervisor of Supplies (P.W. 4), the Assistant Civil Supply Officer (P.W. 1) and two Supply Inspectors (P.Ws. 2 and 3) visited the shop of the accused and verified the stock of essential commodities. On verification, 81.28 quintals of black gram (Biri), 218 numbers of Jeep Torch Cell No. 505 and 96.45 quintals of groundnut were found in the shop. It was further found that the groundnuts and the pulses (black grams) in stock were more than the authorised limit and no sanction of the Controller or the Collector of the District had been obtained for storing the same. Prosecution further alleged that the accused had not displayed the stock position of the essential commodities and the retail price thereof. The stocks of the aforesaid commodities were weighed in presence of the witnesses and the accused and were seized as per seizure list, Ext. 1. The statement of the accused was recorded and seized articles were kept in jima of the accused. After investigation prosecution report was submitted against the accused:
3. The accused in his statement u/s 313, Code of Criminal Procedure took the plea that the first M/s. K.C. Sahu and U.C. Sahu is a wholesale dealer and he was neither the Manager nor the Salesman of the shop and he had nothing to do with the shop. The further plea of the accused was that the stock of essential commodities were not weighed and he was compelled to sign in the seizure list (Ext. I) and the stock registers, Exts. 4 and 5. He further stated that his statement (Ext. 3) was recorded under threat. He alleged that the case was filed at the instance of one Dusasan Jena, the then M.L.A. of the area due to previous enmity as he did not support Dusasan Jena in the last. Assembly election and worked against him. He further alleged that P.W. 4 (the complainant) who is the Supervisor of Supplies, is a relation of Dusasan Jena.
Prosecution examined four witnesses in support of the case. P.W. 1 is the Assistant Civil Supply Officer, P.Ws. 2 and 3 are the Inspectors of Supplies and P.W. 4 is the Supervisor of Supplies, who filed the prosecution report. The accused examined one D.W.
4. Mr. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the Appellant (in Crl. A. 23/78) submitted that the Appellant is no way connected with the shop which b
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
