The court emphasized that possession exceeding permissible limits transforms a person into a dealer necessitating a license under the Essential Commodities Act, while also considering rehabilitation over punishment for elderly offenders.

JUDGMENT :

S.S. Mishra, J.

The present Criminal Appeal, filed by the appellant under Sections 374(2) of the Cr. P.C. read with Section 12 AB of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 is directed against the judgment and order dated 05.04.1994 passed by the learned Special Court, Mayurbhanj, Baripada in 2(c)C.C. No.06 of 1992/T.C. No.14 of 1992, whereby the learned trial Court has convicted the accused-appellant for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (herein after ‘E.C. Act’ for brevity) and, accordingly, sentenced him to undergo R.I. for six months.

2. The appellant stood charged for offences under Section 7 of the E.C. Act read with Clause 3(1)&(2) ORISSA RICE AND PADDY CONTROL ORDER , 1965 and claimed trial by denying the charges.

3. The prosecution alleged that on 19.04.1990, the rented shop of the accused-appellant was raided by the B.D.O., G.B. Nagar and the supply staff of Udala inspected this rented premises and found 25 bags of rice which weighed around 24 Quintals and 77 KGs. However, the accused had no license to store rice beyond permissible limits, as a result of which the stock was seized and subsequently appellant was charged under section 7 of the E.C. Act for violation of Clause 3(1)&(2) ORISSA RICE AND PADDY CONTROL ORDER , 1965.

4. The prosecution in order to bring home charges examined four witnesses. Out of which, P.W.1 was the then Marketing Inspector of the Khunta Block. P.W.2 was the then B.D.O. Khunta Block, P.W.3 was the landlord of the house from where the commodities were seized, and P.W.4 was the cultivator and shopkeeper. The defence examined one witness D.W.1, who claims to be the owner of some part of the seized stock.

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

“P.W.3 says that the accused had taken his house on rent and he used to keep rice in that house and transact business in rice in that house. He said that the accused was paying a monthly rent of Rs 70/- to him P.Ws. 1,2 and 4 say that on 19.4.90 the house of P.W.3, which the accused had taken on rent was inspected and 25 bags of rice were seized from that house. These witnesses say that after taking weighment of the rice of those bags seizure list was prepared and the rice stock was given in the Zima of one Iswar Mohanty, who executed a zimanama. The seizure list, Ext. 1, the weighment sheet Ext.2 and the Ext.3 clearly support the statements of P.Ws. 1,2 and 4. The accused also admitted that Q.24.77.K.Gs. of rice in 25 bags were recovered fro the house in question, his plea is that he and some other persons had kept the rice in that house and that only 5 bags of rice belonged to him.D.W.1 says that he had kept 5 quintals of rice in the house of Gouraheri Berik and other persons namely Prasanna Kumar Ratha, Niranja Chowdhury and Dusasan Behera had also kept their rice in that house. Even P.W.4 says that accused, Prasanna Ratha, Dusasan Behera and Parikhita Behera used to store their rice in that house. P.W.4 and D.W.1 however gave sufficient indication in their statements that they are trying to protect the accused by giving untrue evidence. P.W.4 says that he can not say how much rice was kept by which person and for what purpose the rice stock had been kept in that house. He does not know whether the accused alone used to pay rent or the other four persons used to contribute. D.W.1 is unable to say the name of the owner of the house where the rice stock was there, he says that he is not a relation of the house owner and has not explained why and how he had kept the ric in that house. D.W.1 further says that he