Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
Sibo Sankar Mishra
V.Manmath Rao – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sibo Sankar Mishra, J.
The sole appellant in the present case has challenged the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.07.1996 passed by the learned Second Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur in T.R. No.1/96 (72/95 GDC), corresponding to G.R. Case No.27/94 (V), whereby the appellant has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (E.C. Act) and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for six months.
2. The appeal is pending since 1996. When the matter was called repeatedly, none appeared for the appellant. Therefore, this Court appointed Mr. Satyabrata Mohanty-1, as Amicus Curiae vide order dated 03.07.2025 to assist the Court in the matter.
3. Heard Mr. Satyabrata Mohanty-1, learned Amicus Curiae and Ms. Suvalaxmi Devi, learned counsel for the State.
4. The prosecution case in terse is that the appellant was running a business in the name and style M/s Mahalaxmi Floor Mill. On 10.08.1994 at 2.00 P.M. the officers of Vigilance Department and Commercial Department conducted a joint raid on the mill. In the absence of the appellant, his brother was found present at the spot, who could not produce the d
The presumption of mens rea is rebutted by evidence of an application for a license pending before the authorities.
Pending application for a license negates mens rea for contravention under the Essential Commodities Act, invalidating conviction based solely on non-compliance.
Burden of proof on the accused to explain possession of essential commodities; conviction set aside due to doubt in prosecution's case regarding ownership.
Proof beyond reasonable doubt is required for conviction under the Essential Commodities Act, and mere assumptions or procedural lapses invalidate the prosecution's case.
Strict adherence to statutory requirements under the Essential Commodities Act is essential for lawful operation, and failure to comply can lead to conviction.
Convictions under the Essential Commodities Act require proof of mens rea; minor violations without intentional wrongdoing should be treated leniently, potentially allowing the benefit of probation.
Merely possessing foodgrains without evidence of engaging in business does not constitute an offence under the Essential Commodities Act.
The prosecution must prove that the accused violated the provisions of the relevant order, and in the absence of statutory presumption, factual presumption should not be drawn.
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
