THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
SIBO SANKAR MISHRA, J.
Keshab Mehera - Appellant
Versus
State of Orissa - Respondent
CRA No.152 of 1992
Decided On : 09-12-2025
JUDGMENT :
SIBO SANKAR MISHRA, J.
The present Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 27th March, 1992 passed by the learned Special Judge -cum- Sessions Judge, Balangir, in II(C) C.C. No.13 of 1990/T.R.No.19 of 1990 for the offence punishable under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act and sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-(One Thousand) in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.
2. The present appeal has been pending since 1992. When the matter was called for hearing, consistently none appeared for the appellant. Therefore, this Court requested Mr. Sougat Das, learned counsel, who is present in Court to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae. He has readily accepted the same and after obtaining entire record, assisted the Court very effectively. This Court records appreciation for the meaningful assistance rendered by Mr. Das.
3. Heard Mr. Sougat Das, learned Amicus Curiae, for the appellant and Mr. A.K. Apat, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
4. It is alleged that the accused was running a grocery shop at village Tendapadar under Patnagarh Police Station. On 05.10.1990, during the afternoon, officials of the Supply Department conducted a search of the said shop. During inspection, the accused was found storing 14 litres of kerosene oil, whereas possession of kerosene in excess of 10 litres requires a valid dealership licence, which the accused did not have.
Additionally, the accused was found storing 30 kilograms of common salt. Since common salt is an essential commodity, its stock and price must be displayed on a declaration board under the Orissa Declaration of Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1973. No such declaration board was found in the shop. The accused was, therefore, alleged to have contravened the 1973 Order. On these two grounds unauthorised possession of kerosene beyond the permissible limit and failure to display the mandatory stock and price of common salt, the accused was prosecuted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.
5. The prosecution examined only two witnesses in total. P.W.1 was the then Supply Supervisor and P.W.2 was the then Armed Police Constable. As per the case of the prosecution the premises was inspected by the supply staff in the presence of the armed forces to maintain law and order.
6. The accused pleaded not guilty and refuted the allegation of owning grocery shop at Tendapadar. On this stance of denial, he was put to trial.
7. The learned Trial Court by relying on the statement of both the P.Ws, and the circumstantial evidence held as under:
“7. The Supply Supervisor (P.W. 1) and the Police Constable (P.W.2) depose that the shop had a stock of 14 litres of kerosine. The oral evidence is corroborated by the documentary evidence of seizure list and the zimanama, Ext. 3. The seizure list speaks of seizure of 14 litres of kerosine. The zimanama-Ext. 3 reads that the seized kerosine measuring 14 litres was given in zima, As we find from the oral evidence, the accused himself measured the kerosine in presence of the inspecting party.
8. It is argued that the kerosine has not been scientifically tested. Commonly everybody is a acquainted with kerosine. It has a particular smell quite different from any other liquid. It does not require a scientific test. I, therefore, accept the oral evidence that the seized liquid was nothing but kerosine. Admittedly the accused did not have any dealership license. His possessing kerosine exceeding 14 litres is, therefore, a case of contravention of provision of the Orissa Kerosine Control Orders has been held in (1992)5 O.C.R. 158 Prabhas vrs, State possessing of kerosine exceeding the permissible quantity is punishable u/s 7(1)(a) of the Essential Commodities Act.
9. Coming to the possession of common salt, the Orissa Declaration of Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1
Proof beyond reasonable doubt is required for conviction under the Essential Commodities Act, and mere assumptions or procedural lapses invalidate the prosecution's case.
Convictions under the Essential Commodities Act require proof of mens rea; minor violations without intentional wrongdoing should be treated leniently, potentially allowing the benefit of probation.
Strict adherence to statutory requirements under the Essential Commodities Act is essential for lawful operation, and failure to comply can lead to conviction.
The prosecution must prove intentional violation of regulations, and mere ownership does not imply liability when the owner is incapacitated.
Burden of proof on the accused to explain possession of essential commodities; conviction set aside due to doubt in prosecution's case regarding ownership.
The court confirmed conviction under the Essential Commodities Act while granting probation to the petitioner, acknowledging valid evidence despite some witness contradictions.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.