The presumption of mens rea is rebutted by evidence of an application for a license pending before the authorities.

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 document relating to the license of milling business. Physical verification of stock was made by the raiding party. They found that the appellant had stored ten bags of gram-dal each weighing 100 kg in the mill premises. It was also found that the appellant has stored eleven bags of gram-dal each weighing 100 kg and fifty-eight packets of peas dal each weighing 50 kg. Since the appellant was not having retailer license, he has violated the provisions of Storage Control Order and the Licensing Order.

5. On the basis of the aforementioned allegation, Vigilance P.S. Case No.27/1994 was registered against the appellant. After investigation, charge sheet was filed for commission of offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (E.C. Act) on the allegation of violation of the provisions of the Pulses, Edible Oil Seeds and Edible Oils (Storage Control) Order, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Storage Order’) and the Orissa Pulses, Edible Oil Seeds and Edible Oils Dealer (Licensing Order), 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Licensing Order’). The appellant took a stand of denial and claimed trial. Accordingly, he was subjected to trial for the offence charged under Section 7 of the E.C. Act.

6. The prosecution in order to establish its case examined as many as five witnesses, whereas six witnesses were examined by the defence. The defence has also exhibited various documents.

7. After threadbare analysis and appreciation of evidence, the trial court arrived at the following conclusion and findings:-

“7. P.W.7 the Inspector of Police Vigilance claimed that at the time of his visit the mill was running. This has not been challenged by the defence in cross examination. While the mill was running ten quintals of gram dal were found stored in the mill. D.W.1 to 6 claimed that they had taken their stock of gram dal and peas dal to the mill of the accused for milling and production of BESAN. D.W.1 in his cross examination admitted that accused had been doing milling business for the last 7 to 8 years. Thus the accused comes within the meaning of the term as “Producer” as defined in Clause-2(j) of the storage control order and he is also a producer within the meaning of clause 2(ii) of the Licensing order. Both the orders prohibit doing of business as a producer without a licence. Clause 3 of the licensing order and Clause 3 of the storage control order lay down that no person shall carry on business as a producer without a licence. The accused by acting as a producer, therefore, contravened both the orders and thus is liable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. During argument the learned counsel for the accused took me through the case of Balasa Venkatesa Parumal vrs. State reported in 1990 (1) Crimes 74. In this decision His Lordship of Andh