Conviction under the Essential Commodities Act requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, and older offenders may be granted probation due to age and lack of criminal history.

JUDGMENT :

S.S. Mishra, J.

The present Criminal Appeal, is filed by the appellants under Sections 374 of the Cr. P.C., assailing the judgment and order dated 17.01.2000 passed by the learned Special Judge, (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar in T.R. Case No.8/6 of 1994/92, whereby the learned trial Court has convicted the accused-appellant No.2(Nityananda Rath) who was the managing partner of accused-appellant No.1(Firm) for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (herein after the ‘E.C. Act’ for brevity) and, accordingly, sentenced him to undergo R.I. for three months besides fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to further undergo R.I. for 15 days. However, the learned trial Court didn’t impose any separate penalty on the accused-appellant No.1(Firm).

2. The prosecution has charged the appellants for violation of Rule 12 of Orissa Pulses and Edible Oil Control Order , 1962 which is an offence under Section 7 of the E.C. Act.

3. The case of the prosecution, succinctly stated, is that the appellant’s business premise was raided by vigilance squad during the morning hours on 05.04.1990, which continued till evening. In course of the raid, it was summarily found that:-

a) There was shortage of 6 tins of mustard oil, 101 tins of soybean refined oil, 76 tins of Maharaja refined oil and 2 tins of coconut oil, each tin weighing 15 kilograms, 34 packets of mung dal each weighing 50 Kgs and excess of 60 tins of Konark Banaspati Ghee each weighing 15 Kgs.

b) The actual stock, price board and the shortage and excess of essential commodities couldn’t be accounted for.

In the conspectus of the above material facts, the accused-appellants were charged under Section 7 of the E.C. Act for allegedly violating Rule 12 of the Orissa Pulses and Edible Oil Control Order , 1977 and Orissa Declaration of Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodity Order, 1973 on the ground of various discrepancies and irregularities regarding the maintenance of stock.

4. The prosecution examined six witnesses in order to bring home charges against the accused- appellants. Out of which, P.W.1 was the then Commercial Tax Officer, Bhubaneswar. P.W.2 was the then D.S.P., Vigilance, Bhubaneswar, who was a part of the raid team, P.W.3 was a Senior Clerk in the office of C.S.O., Puri, who produced the license register to prove that the accused was a dealer in edible oil, oil seeds and pulses. P.W.5 was the Inspector, Sales Tax at Cuttack Vigilance Division, who also accompanied the Vigilance officers, P.Ws.4 and 6 were the Vigilance Inspectors, who took part in the raid. However, there was no witness examined by the defense.

5. The learned trial Court analysed the oral evidence and documents on record like the stock, sales register etc. and categorically held that there was no such discrepancy in the stock of commodities, namely, mustard oil, soybean oil, coconut oil, Maharaja refined oil and Moong dal. However, the learned Court below while scrutinizing the evidence on record, found discrepancy regarding the commodity, namely, Konark Banaspati Ghee. Relevant part of the judgement is reproduced herein under for ready reference:-

“16. Admittedly, the amount of Konark Banaspati ghee found in the shop of the accused at the time of raid was 168 tins. It is also admitted that that the opening balance of this item of essential commodity as on 1.4.90 was 170 tins. According to the defence, the accused sold 77 tins of Konark Banaspati ghee during the relevant period. Since, the accused did not purchase any stock of Konark Banaspati ghee in between 1.4.90 to 5.4.90, the stock with the accused on 5.4.90 should have been 170-77 tins. Thus it is seen that the accused should have a stock of 93 tins of