Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
S.K. Sahoo, J.
Chaitanya Nahak - Appellant
Versus
State Of Odisha - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 243 of 1990
Decided On : 12-05-2021
JUDGMENT - [KEYWORD] - [SUBJECT] - [ACT SECTION LIST] - [SUMMARY]
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Chaitanya Nahak, was summarily tried in the Court of learned Sessions Judge -cum- Special Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur for offences punishable under sections 7 and 9 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereafter 'E.C. Act') for contravention of the provisions under Clause 3(1) of the Orissa Sugar Dealers' Licensing Order, 1963 (hereafter 1963 Order'), Clause 6 of the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965 (hereafter 1965 Order') and Clause 14 of the Orissa Wheat and Wheat Products Control Order, 1988 (hereafter 1988 Order').
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the appellant, as the Secretary of the Sundarpur Service Cooperative Society (S.S.C. Society), was responsible for the irregularities in the distribution of essential commodities, including sugar, wheat, and rice, to consumers under the Public Distribution System. The Court held that the appellant had contravened Clause 3 of the 1963 Order and was liable under section 7 of the E.C. Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the institution of the case on the basis of the prosecution report of P.W.1 was legally permissible? 2. Whether the statement of the appellant in writing vide Ext.27 can be acted upon? 3. Whether the charge for contravention of Clause 3 of the 1963 Order is successfully established by prosecution? 4. Whether conviction of the appellant as Secretary of the S.S.C. Society without arraigning S.S.C. Society as an accused was legally permissible in view of section 10 of the E.C. Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the institution of the case on the basis of the prosecution report of P.W.1 was legally permissible as the notification dated 05.11.1986 of the Food & Civil Supplies Department, State of Odisha, authorized Inspectors of Supplies to exercise the powers under section 12-AA(1)(e) of the E.C. Act within State of Odisha. 2. The Court held that the statement of the appellant in writing vide Ext.27 could not be acted upon as it was not voluntary and was obtained under pressure. 3. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the charge for contravention of Clause 3 of the 1963 Order against the appellant as the entries in the sugar sales register regarding disposal of the sugar were not proved to be in the handwritings of the appellant. 4. The Court held that the conviction of the appellant as Secretary of the S.S.C. Society without arraigning S.S.C. Society as an accused was not legally permissible in view of section 10 of the E.C. Act, which requires the company to be arraigned as an accused before its officers can be held vicariously liable.
Final Decision: The Court set aside the impugned judgment and order of conviction of the appellant under sections 7 and 9 of the E.C. Act and the sentence passed thereunder, and acquitted the appellant of all charges.
JUDGMENT
S.K. Sahoo, J. - The appellant Chaitanya Nahak was summarily tried in the Court of learned Sessions Judge -cum- Special Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur in 2(C) C.C. No.08 of 1989 for offences punishable under sections 7 and 9 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereafter 'E.C. Act') for contravention of the provisions under Clause 3(1) of the Orissa Sugar Dealers' Licensing Order, 1963 (hereafter 1963 Order'), Clause 6 of the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965 (hereafter 1965 Order') and Clause 14 of the Orissa Wheat and Wheat Products Control Order, 1988 (hereafter 1988 Order').
The learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 06.09.1990 found the appellant guilty of the offences under sections 7 and 9 of the E.C. Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months on each count and directed the sentences to run concurrently.
2. The case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that Sundarpur Service Cooperative Society (hereafter 'S.S.C. Society'), a Society registered under the Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1962 had taken out the licenses vide Exts.1, 2 and 3 under the 1963 Order, 1965 Order and 1988 Order respectively to deal with sugar, rice and wheat as a retail dealer at village Sundarpur during the year 1986-87. On the strength of such licenses, the S.S.C. Society applied for authority to deal with those essential commodities on behalf of the consumers covered under Public Distribution System. The Sub-Collector, Chatrapur, who was the licensing authority in that regard, authorized the Secretary, S.S.C. Society i.e. the appellant to be the dealer for dealing with such commodities under the Public Distribution System. For lifting the stock of those commodities meant for distribution under the public distribution system, the Sub-Collector or his subordinate i.e. Block Development Officer, Chatrapur, Ganjam used to pass allotment orders in favour of the S.S.C. Society for taking delivery through its Secretary and pursuant to the allotment orders vide Exts.15, 17, 19, 21, 23 and 25 passed by Block Development Officer, Chatrapur, Ganjam, the release orders vide Exts.16, 18, 20, 22, 24 and 26 were issued for issue of the commodities in favour of the Secretary, S.S.C. Society from the side of the stockist from time to time during that licensing period.
It is the further prosecution case that on 24.02.1989 at about 3 p.m., Md. Habibulla (P.W.1), Inspector of Supplies, Block Office, Chatrapur who is the Complainant of the case along with Sri Bauribandhu Padhi, Inspector of Supplies, Headquarter, Chatrapur visited the business premises of the S.S.C. Society and found that the appellant who was the Secretary was present there and on demand, he produced books of account of sugar, wheat, wholemeal Atta and rice relating to the fair price shop for the period 12/88 to 1/89. Exts.4 to 7 were the registers in respect of sugar, Exts.8 to 11 were the registers in respect of wheat and Exts.12 to 14 were the registers in respect of rice which were placed for inspection in compliance of the direction.
It is the further prosecution case that on going through those registers, P.W.1 noticed that pursuant to the orders under Ext.15 of the allotting authority and Ext.16 of the licensing authority, the appellant had lifted sixteen quintals of sugar on 11.01.1989 by acknowledging receipt against the entries Ext.4/1 of the Sugar log book and Ext.5/1 of the Sugar stock register and stated to have distributed the same by 20.01.1989 without collecting the signatures of the purchasers against the relevant entries made in the Sugar sales register, Ist Volume (Ext.7). In the Sugar sales register, 2nd Volume (Ext.6), P.W.1 noticed noting of sale of sugar in favour of ration card holders without collection of signatures of the concerned card holders at pages 22, 24, 28, 32 and at several other pages. As against sugar allotment order dated 11.01.1989 (Ext.17) and issue order dated 30.01.1989 (Ext.18), the a
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
