Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Ori) 218

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
SIBO SANKAR MISHRA, J.
Amar Kumar Patra - Appellant
Versus
State of Orissa - Respondent
CRA No.158 of 2000
Decided on : 18-07-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms. Soma Nanda, Amicus Curiae
For the Respondent: Mr. Sarathi Jyoti Mohanty, ASC

The court affirmed the eligibility for probation under the Probation of Offenders Act despite the minimum sentence under the Essential Commodities Act, considering the appellant's age and clean antecedents.

Headnote:(A) Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Section 7(1)(a)(i) - Conviction for misappropriation of kerosene oil - Appellant, a sub-wholesaler, found guilty of not maintaining records and hiding stock of kerosene oil - Conviction upheld with probation consideration due to appellant's age and clean history. (Paras 2, 12, 14, 15, 16)

(B) Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 - Appellant eligible for probation despite minimum sentence prescribed under E.C. Act - Factors considered include age, clean antecedents, societal integration, and time elapsed since the offence. (Paras 13, 14, 16)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for misappropriating 26,600 litres of kerosene oil, failing to maintain required registers, and was sentenced to three months of rigorous imprisonment plus fines.

Findings of Court:
Prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. The trial found sufficient evidence to convict the appellant.

Issues: The reliability of prosecution witnesses, the appellant's state during the alleged crimes, and the option for probation after decades without further offenses.

Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed statutory provisions allowing for probation despite firearms required by the controlling act, emphasizing rehabilitation over punishment for older offenders with no prior history.

Result: Appeal dismissed; the appellant granted probation.

Table of Content
1. conviction based on evidence of kerosene oil misappropriation. (Para 1 , 4 , 5)
2. evidence supports finding of appellant's culpability. (Para 6 , 7 , 11)
3. arguments about appellant's age and societal integration for leniency. (Para 8 , 13)
4. court upholds trial's conviction beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 10 , 12)
5. application of probation of offenders act due to appellant's circumstances. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)

JUDGMENT :

SIBO SANKAR MISHRA, J.

1. The present Criminal Appeal is arising out of the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.06.2000 passed by the learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge under the Essential Commodities Act, Berhampur in 2(c) C.C. No.1 of 93/T.R. No.18 of 96, whereby the learned Court below finding the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 7 (1)(a)(i) of the Essential Commodities Act has sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred), in default, to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for another fifteen days.

2. This appeal was preferred by the appellant on 17.07.2000 and since then, the appeal is pending. When the matter was called for hearing, Mr. Anshuman Roy, Advocate appeared for Mr. D.P. Dhal, learned Senior Advocate and submitted that this is a very old matter and there is no instruction on behalf of the appellant. In that scenario, he seeks discharge from the matter. However, this Court requested Ms. Soma Nanda, Advocate to assist the Court in the capacity of the Amicus Curiae to which she has readily agreed and rendered very effective assistance in disposal of the appeal. This Court records appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by Ms. Soma Nanda, Amicus Curiae.

3. Heard Ms. Soma Nanda, learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Sarathi Jyoto 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 sub-wholesaler licensee from 31.12.1985 up till 31.12.1989 issued by the Collector, Ganjam. The Inspector of Supplies, P.W.8 the complainant on 09.04.1990 verified the Stock Register in the shop of the appellant and found that except five numbers of empty barrels, no kerosene oil stock was there. The appellant was supposed to have 400 litres of kerosene oil in his possession as per the Stock Register. It was also discovered by P.W.8 that the appellant had not maintained the Sales Register and Stock Register for the period from 01.04.1989 to 31.03.1990. It is, therefore, alleged on verification that the appellant had misappropriated 26,600 litres of kerosene oil between the period from 01.04.1989 till 09.04.1990. Since the appellant has violated the condition nos.4 and 8 of the license granted under the Odisha Kerosene Oil Control Order, 1962 issued to him by the Collector, he was subjected to prosecution under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

5. The prosecution examined nine witnesses besides relying upon numerous documents. P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 were the witnesses who were the retailers under the appellant those who are supposed to receive the kerosene oil from the appellant to sell in the retail market to the consumers. P.W.5 was the seizure witness of the empty barrels. P.W.8 is the Supply Inspector, who is the complainant in the case whereas P.W.9 is the Supply Supervisor who accompanied P.W.8 at the time of verification of the stock.

6. The evidence of all the witnesses are consistent. They have deposed in unison to support the prosecution story against the appellant. The learned trial Court meticulously dealt with the material on record and arrived at the following findings:

“6. Since there is clear finding that the accused violated Condition No.4 of the license, he is liable for punishment under Sec.7 of the E.C. Act as the order and the license are deemed to have been issued under Sec.3 thereof. Any violation of