Prosecution of public servants under the Essential Commodities Act requires prior sanction; lack thereof invalidates prosecution. Sufficient evidence can uphold conviction despite procedural issues.

JUDGMENT :

SIBO SANKAR MISHRA, J.

Since both the appeals are arising out of a common impugned judgment, therefore, the same were analogously heard and judgment was reserved.

In the instant case, out of five accused persons, three accused persons have been convicted by the learned Special Judge-cum- Additional Sessions Judge, Rairangpur vide impugned judgment and order dated 26.04.2000 in G.R. Case No.406 of 1997 (T.C. No.8/98) for alleged commission of offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (for short “E.C. Act”) in lieu of the contravention of Clause 3(1) of Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Act and Section 8 of the E.C. Act, 1955. On that count, they are sentenced to undergo R.I. for three months each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for fifteen days.

2. The present appeals are pending since 08.05.2000 and 11.05.2000 respectively. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 15.07.2025, none had appeared on behalf of the appellants. Therefore, this Court requested Mr. Janmejaya Katakia, 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. Katakia.

3. Heard Mr. Janmejaya Katakia, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellants and Mr. Ashok Kumar Apat, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

4. It is relevant to mention that during pendency of the present appeal, the appellant No.2 in CRA No.110 of 2000, namely, Narahari Mohanta has expired on 05.08.2008. Therefore, CRA No.110 of 2000 qua the appellant No.2- Narahari Mohanta stood abated in the absence of any application under Section 394 Cr.P.C. by the legal heirs or next friend of the deceased-appellant. Hence, the appeal is considered only in respect of appellant No.1, namely, Saroj Kumar Pradhan in CRA No.110 of 2000.

5. The prosecution set the criminal law into motion against the five accused persons pursuant to the registration of Rairangpur Rural P.S. Case No.57 of 1997 on 02.11.1997. The prosecution case in terse and brief is that:

(a) On 01.11.1997, distribution of APL and BPL rice was being carried out by the supply department employees, namely, Sudhansu Sekhar Behera, Rajendra Kumar Behera, and Santosh Kumar Barik. The rice was being sold at the rate of Rs.2/- per kilogram. It is alleged that the accused, Saroj Kumar Pradhan, unlawfully removed 6.68 kilograms of rice and kept the same in the residential quarter of his wife, Smt. Sumati Patra, who was serving as an ANM. Consequently, several persons of the concerned Gram Panchayat were deprived of their due share of rice. When the villagers questioned the accused regarding the said act, he allegedly threatened them. Thereafter, the villagers lodged a written report at Rairangpur (Rural) Police Station.

(b) Upon receipt of the report, on 02.11.1997, the Officer-in-Charge of Rairangpur (Rural) Police Station registered the case and took up investigation. During investigation, on 03.11.1997, the Investigating Officer seized 5.80 kilograms of rice produced by the informant, Iswar Chandra Behera, which had been lying in front of the ANM quarter of Smt. Sumati Patra, vide Seizure List (Ext.5/1). On 05.11.1997 at about 11:00 A.M., 18 consumer identity cards were seized from the informant vide Seizure List (Ext. 5/1). The Investigating Officer also seized a plain paper containing certain writings with the name of the accused, Saroj Kumar Pradhan, written below (Ext. 3/1).

(c) Further, the Tally Register of Mobile Van No. OR-02/F-8936, al