Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Keshab Mehera – Appellant
Versus
State of Orissa – Respondent
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 u
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.
Possession of kerosene in excess of permitted amount without authorization constitutes a statutory violation warranting conviction; speedy trial is essential for justice under Article 21.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
