The conviction under the Essential Commodities Act was upheld; however, the court modified the sentence to probation considering the appellant's age and lack of criminal record.

JUDGMENT :

S.S. Mishra, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29.04.2000 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum- Special Judge, Rairangpur, in G.R. Case No. 270 of 1999 (T.C. No. 10 of 1999), convicting the appellant under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the "E.C. Act") for alleged contravention of Section 3 of the said Act read with Clause 7 of the Orissa Kerosene Control Order, 1962.

2. The prosecution case originates from an incident dated 5th August 1999, when Nrusingha Charan Pradhan (P.W.2), then serving as the Marketing Inspector (Enforcement), Rairangpur, received directions from the Sub-Collector, Rairangpur, to proceed to the village Bhatchhatar for inspection. The directive was issued after local villagers had allegedly informed the Additional B.D.O. of Bisoi Block (P.W.3) about large-scale illegal storage of kerosene and terpentine oil inside a Dhaba situated near National Highway No.6. Acting upon this information, a team consisting of the Marketing Inspector (P.W.2), the Assistant Civil Supplies Officer (P.W.4), and other administrative officials, including the Sub-Collector and Tahasildar of Rairangpur, reached the spot around 5:30 PM on the same day. The team entered the said Dhaba, which was alleged to be under the control of the appellant, Dhruba Charan Giri, and conducted a search in the presence of public witnesses and officials.

3. During the search operation, the authorities claimed to have recovered a full barrel containing 260 litres of kerosene oil, three plastic jerricans, and a barrel containing 100 litres of terpentine oil, along with one empty barrel. The appellant, who was allegedly present at the Dhaba at the time of seizure, was asked to produce a valid licence or any authorization document for the possession of the seized commodities. Upon his failure to do so, the articles were seized under seizure list marked Ext.1/1, and a zimanama (Ext.3) was prepared for temporary custody. Thereafter, P.W.2 lodged a First Information Report at Bisoi Police Station, which was registered and investigated by Dhiren Chandra Nanda (P.W.6), the Officer-in-Charge.

4. Subsequent to the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant for alleged violation of Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Clause 7 of the Orissa Kerosene Control Order, 1962, punishable under Section 7 of the Act and the appellant was put to trial. During the trial, six witnesses were examined by the prosecution. Among them, P.Ws.2, 3, and 4, all official witnesses, supported the prosecution’s version regarding the seizure and possession of the articles by the appellant. P.W.1 and P.W.5, who were purported seizure witnesses, did not support the prosecution case and claimed ignorance about the recovery. P.W.5 further stated that his signature was obtained on blank paper.

5. The appellant, when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., took the plea of complete denial. He contended that he neither owned nor operated any Dhaba on the spot from where the alleged recovery took place and that he had been falsely implicated by the Marketing Inspector (P.W.2). It was also contended that the seized articles did not belong to him, and no conclusive proof was furnished by the prosecution to establish his ownership or conscious possession over the premises or the articles.

6. The learned trial court held the appellant is guilty under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo further R.I. for 15 days. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order of conviction dated 29.04.2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Rairangpur in G.R. Case No.270 of 1999, the present appeal has been filed.

7. The trial Court, after credible analysis, has arrived at the following finding-

“The accused has not cited any witness to the effect that he h