Judicial discretion allows the court to grant probation under the Probation of Offenders Act despite statutory minimum sentences, considering individual circumstances and rehabilitative needs.

JUDGMENT :

SIBO SANKAR MISHRA, J.

1. The present Criminal Appeal, filed by the appellant under Section 374 of the Cr. P.C., is directed against the judgment and order dated 09.08.1996 passed by the learned Special Court, Mayurbhanj, Baripada in G.R. Case No.23 of 1989/T.C. No.6 of 1990, whereby the learned trial Court has convicted the accused-appellant along with another accused for the offences punishable under Section 7 and 8 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (herein after ‘E.C. Act’ for brevity) and, accordingly, sentenced them to undergo R.I. for three months each.

2. The prosecution has charged the appellant for the alleged commission of the offences under Sections 7 and 8 of the E.C. Act read with the provisions of the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965.

3. The prosecution case in brief and terse is that on 23.02.1989, the house of the appellant was raided by P.W.3, a Vigilance Inspector along with the then authorities from the Supply Department and it was found that a large quantity of rice and paddy have been stored. Two trucks bearing registration Nos.ORB-7037 and ORB-5415 were also detected at the very location. During enquiry, co-accused Shyam Sundar Jena admitted to be the owner of 140 bags of paddy and rice and co-accused Krushna Patra admitted to be the owner of 157 bags of Paddy. Following this, the rice and paddy bags were seized along with the trucks and the documents from the respective drivers. The accused persons faced the trial on the charges as mentioned above.

4. The prosecution in order to bring home charges against the accused examined three witnesses. Out of which, P.W.1 was the Supervisor of supplies at Baripada. P.W.2 was the then Inspector of Vigilance, Baripada who subsequently investigated the case. P.W.3, the then Inspector of Vigilance, Baripada was the informant in this case and he initially investigated the case. No independent witness was examined by the prosecution.

5. By appreciating and analyzing the evidence brought on record by the prosecution and taking into consideration the defense plea eventually the learned trial Court arrived at the following conclusion that the accused are guilty of the charges under Sections 7 and 8 of the E.C. Act read with the provisions of the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965. The relevant findings read thus: -

“Accused Krushna Patra has admitted that he could not show any permit or license for possessing such a large quantity of paddy at the time of detection. It has been simply suggested to P.W.3 that the said paddy was belonging to one of the relations of accused Krushna Patra. This accused has not examined any witness either to show himself to be cultivator or to show the ownership of the seized paddy belonging to some of his relations. Simply two records of right have been filed (Exts-J and K) recorded in the name of one Asim Kumar Mohapatra of Bansada. There is nothing on record to show that the seized paddy from accused Krushna Patra was belonging to Asim Kumar Mohapatra. On the contrary the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 3 already shows that the accused Krushna Patra admitted himself to be the owner of 100 quintals, 46 K.Gs. and 500 grammes of paddy seized from the house of Dulla Kisku on 22.2.89. Therefore, accused Krushna Patra and Dulla Kisku are clearly coming within the ambit of Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965 and are liable to be punished U/s 7 and 8 of the Essential Commodities Act respectively. So I hold them guilty under the aforesaid sections and convict them thereunder for the vitiation of the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965. ”

6. Aggrieved by the judgment of conv