The court held that valid permits must comply with timing and conditions of transport; thus, despite appellate evidence, the conviction under the Essential Commodities Act stands, while probation is granted based on the appellant's age and clean history.

JUDGMENT :

SIBO SANKAR MISHRA, J.

1. The present Criminal Appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.07.1998 passed by the learned Special Judge, Rairangpur in G.R. Case No.148 of 1992, whereby the appellant has been found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. On the said count, he has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand), in default, to further undergo R.I. for one month.

2. Heard Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondent-State.

3. The facts portrayed by the prosecution in terse and brief is that on 15.03.1992 at about 6 A.M., accused Ramesh Kumar Agarwalla was found transporting 90 bags of rice in a Truck bearing Registration No.ORM-2035 being driven by accused Ananta Khilar and another 90 bags in a truck bearing Registration No.OSM-3315 being driven by accused Sudarsan Muduli from Balasore, State of Odisha to the State of Bihar without any valid permit on Tata-Bahalada P.W.D. Road and was caught by S.I. Mr. P.K. Nayak of Tiring Police Station who drew a plain paper F.I.R. at the spot, took up preliminary investigation, seized those two trucks with documents and 180 bags of rice loaded on the same and caused production of the accused persons and seized articles before the O.I.C., Tiring Police Station where after Tiring P.S. Case No.26 of 2992 was registered and investigation was carried out. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the appellant and others for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 7 and 8 of the Essential Commodities Act.

4. In order to establish the case, the prosecution examined as many as four witnesses. P.W.4, the then S.I. of Police attached to Jharadihi Out Post under Tiring Police Station is the Reporting Officer. P.W.1, the then A.S.I. of Police, Tiring Police Station is an eye-witness. P.W.3, a local resident is a witness to the seizure. P.W.2 the then O.I.C. of Tiring Police Station is the Investigating Officer, who has submitted the Charge Sheet. The defence has also examined six witnesses out of whom D.W.1 is the accused Ramesh Kumar Agarwalla himself D.W.2, C.S.O., Sambalpur is a witness to the issuance of permit to transport rice, D.W.3 and D.W.6, two Clerks of supplying agencies are witnesses to supply of rice, D.W.4 a villager of Nimdihi is a witness to loading of rice from damaged trucks to the seized trucks and D.W.5 is the proprietor of the farm to which the seized rice was consigned.

5. Learned Trial Court, by threadbare analysing the evidence of the prosecution as well as the defence, has arrived at the following finding:

“6. F.I.R. story is that on 15.3.92 at about 6 A.m. near village Nimdihi on Bihar-Orissa border, on Bahalda-Tata P.W.D.. road accused Ramesh Agarwalla was transporting 180 bags of Orua and Ushna (boiled and raw) rice in truck Nos ORM 2035 and OSM 3315 each loaded with 90 bags from Balasore to Jamshedpur without valid permit, and after, detection of this crime the informant, S.I. of Jharadihi Out Post under Tiring P.S. made seizure of the trucks with the loaded rice bags when on demand no permit for transportation was produced. This F.I.R. story has been echoed by the informant, P.W.4 in his evidence with addition that accused Ramesh did not disclose the name of person from whom he had purchased that rice, with the accused persons and the seized trucks and rice, seized under Exts. 1 and 2 he approached 0.I.C, Tiring P.S. and submitted his written report Ext.3 before him and