Back
2025 Supreme(Ori) 179
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
SIBO SANKAR MISHRA, J.
Kumar Swamy Kilaka - Appellant
Versus
State of Orissa - Respondent
CRA No.82 of 1998
Decided on : 18-07-2025
For the Appellant : Ms. Subhashree Sen, Amicus Curiae
For the Respondent: Mr. S.J. Mohanty, ASC
The requirement of a stock display board under the Liquefied Petroleum Gas Order does not mandate it to be detachable; hence, misinterpretation leads to wrongful conviction.
Headnote:(A) Essential Commodities Act - Section 7(1)(a) - Violation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 1993 - Appellant convicted for failure to display accurate stock information. The trial Court ruled the appellant guilty based on a misreading of Clause-7(Paragraph 7).
(B) Court's role on appeal - It should reevaluate evidence without substituting its judgment improperly. (Paragraph 10).
Facts of the case:
The appellant, proprietor of M/s. Janaki Gas, was inspected and found to have discrepancies in the stock of gas cylinders and the display board indicating 'NIL' stock. The appellant claimed discrepancies were due to timing and illness of staff.
Findings of Court:
Conviction based on the failure to correctly display stock information, not sustainable due to misinterpretation of the requirement for a detachable board.
Issues: Whether the appellant violated the order by not having a detachable board.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that there is no law requiring the display board to be detachable, thus overturning the conviction due to a misinterpretation by the trial Court.
Result: Appeal allowed; appellant acquitted.
JUDGMENT :
S.S. Mishra, J.
The sole appellant in the present Criminal Appeal has assailed the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.04.1998 passed by the learned District Judge-cum-Special Judge, Ganjam-Gajapati, Berhampur in 2(c) C.C. No.2/1997, thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 7 (1)(a) of the Essential Commodities Act and accordingly, sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred), in default, to undergo S.I. for a period of fifteen days.
2. The appeal is pending since 1998. Nobody has been appearing in this matter since last two hearings and when the matter is taken up today, none has appeared for the appellant. Therefore, I appoint Ms. Subhashree Sen, Advocate, Enrollment No.622 of 2016, who is present in Court as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court in the matter. She has readily accepted the same and very effectively rendered her assistance.
3. Heard Mr. S.J. Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent-State.
4. The prosecution case in terse and brief is that the appellant was the proprietor of M/s. Janaki Gas. On 10.08.1996 at about 10.30 A.M., P.Ws. 1, 2 & 3 inspected the establishment of the appellant and discovered that the price and stock display board and stock of the filled gas cylinder was shown as “NIL”. On verification, it was found that four numbers of filled gas cylinders were available in the go-down. However, in the register maintained by the appellant, five numbers of filled gas cylinders were shown in the stock as against four numbers of available gas cylinders. Therefore, the prosecution report was prepared against the appellant for violation of the Clauses-7, 8 and 9 of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as “Order, 1993”). Accordingly, the appellant was charged for commission of the offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and subjected to trial.
5. The prosecution examined three witnesses. P.W.1 was the then Sub-Collector, Berhampur. P.Ws.2 and 3 were the officials of Supply Department. The appellant also examined three witnesses on his defence.
6. The appellant took a stand that the authorities have inspected his premises on 10.08.1996 at about 10.30 A.M. wherein four numbers of filled gas cylinders were there in the go-down. But the stock position in the Stock Register dated 08.08.1996 was showing six numbers of filled gas cylinders available. The appellant took a stance that out of six numbers of filled gas cylinders, one was a display in the show room and one was sold on 09.08.1996 in the late hours. Due to the illness of the Manager (D.W.3), he could not make the entry in the register on that day. Before the entry could be made in the stock register on 10.08.1996 in the morning, the inspection was carried out. He further stated that the allegation of the prosecution that in the display board, the cylinder stock are shown as “NIL” is a misconception and a concocted story.
7. Learned trial Court dealt with the evidence of the prosecution as well as the defence and arrived at a conclusion that non-maintaining of the Stock Register is not believable. Therefore, the appellant was acquitted of the allegation of violation of Clause-8 & 9 of the Order, 1993. However, the trial Court found the appellant guilty of violation of Clause-7 of the Regulation Order, 1993. On the basis of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court arrived at a conclusion that the stock and price display board fixed to the wall was not detachable, which is required under Clause-7 of the Regulation Order, 1993. Hence, the appellant is guilty for the offence under Section 7 (1)(a) of the Essential Commodities Act for having violated Clause-7 of the Order, 1993. Relevant would be to reproduce paragraph-7 of the impugned judgment which records the finding regarding the guilt of the appellant which reads thus:
“7. The next allegation of the prosecut
