The prosecution bears the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and eligible appellants may receive probation despite minimum sentences under the Essential Commodities Act.

JUDGMENT :

SIBO SANKAR MISHRA, J.

The present Criminal Appeal, filed by the appellants under Sections 374(2) of the Cr. P.C., is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.12.1995 passed by the learned District Judge-cum-Judge, Special Court, Phulbani in G.R. Case No.82 of 1994, whereby the learned trial Court has convicted the accused-appellants for the offences punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (herein after ‘E.C. Act’ for brevity) and, accordingly, sentenced them to undergo R.I. for four months each besides fine of Rs.300/-, in default, to further undergo R.I. for one month.

2. The prosecution has charged the appellant Nos.1 & 2 for offences under Section 7 (1)(a)(ii) of the E.C. Act read with Rule 10 of the Orissa Kerosene Control Order, 1962. However, in so far as the other appellants are concerned, they stood charged for alleged offences punishable under Sections 6 & 7 of the E.C. Act.

3. The prosecution alleged that on 02.03.1994 at about 7.00 P.M., the appellant No.2 on behalf of appellant No.1 illegally sold 35 liters of kerosene oil to appellant Nos.3 & 4. The allegations are essentially regarding the pilferage of stock of kerosene of the retail shop situated at Sarangagada, which was made for consumption of public. The detailed prosecution story which eventually reflected in F.I.R. and the prosecution went to prove the same is tersely and briefly narrated hereunder:-

a) As per the F.I.R. lodged by one Sahadev Patra on 02.03.1994 at 8:00 PM at Sarangada Police Station, is that on the same day at around 7:00 PM, one Bagha @ Ananta Padhi, elder brother of Jagannath Padhi, opened the control shop and handed over a plastic jerry can (Jarkin) to the accused persons, Ramakrushna Padhi and Rajendra Panda. Thereafter, Ramakrushna Padhi held a bicycle while Rajendra Panda carried the jerry can behind him, and both proceeded towards Patarasahi.

b) Suspicious of their actions, the informant along with his friends, Prafulla Kumar Bissoi and Jasobanta Bissoi, followed them. Upon intercepting the accused persons, they inquired about the contents of the jerry can. On opening it, they found that it contained 35 litres of kerosene. The informant and his companions then took possession of the jerry can and kept it in the custody of one Pindika Patra.

c) Subsequently, Sahadev Patra lodged the FIR, based on which the police registered Sarangada P.S. Case No. 9 dated 02.03.1994, and seized the jerry can from the house of Pindika Patra. The matter culminated in the registration of G.R. Case No. 82 of 1994 before the Court of the Special Judge, Phulbani.

4. The prosecution in order to bring home charges examined seven witnesses. Out of which, P.W.1 is a seizure witness. P.W.2 is the F.I.R. named witness, P.W.3 is the informant in this case, P.W.4 is the ex- mutha head (unclear), P.W.5 is the wholesale dealer of the kerosene, P.W.6 is the initial I.O. and P.W.7 is the subsequent I.O.

5. The learned trial Court analysed the evidenced on record in detail and returned the following findings:-

“7. It is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution is required to prove it's case against the accused persons beyond any reasonable doubt. It is the case of the prosecution that accused No.1 is the retail dealer of Kerosene oil for Sarangagada. According to P.Ws. 2 and 3 accused No.1 was not present or parted with this 35 liters of kerosene oil to accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4. Thus, accused No.1 has not associated himself in parting 35 liters of kerosene oil by accused no.2 in favour of accused Nos. 3 and 4.

P.W.5 has said that he had issued 200 liters of kerosene oil on 26.2.94 to accused No.1