The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; discrepancies in evidence led to the acquittal of the appellant under the Essential Commodities Act.

JUDGMENT :

S.S. Mishra, J.

The sole appellant by filing the present appeal has assailed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.11.1995 passed by the learned Judge (Special Court), Sambalpur in T.R. Case No. 12 of 1991, whereby the appellant has been convicted for commission of offence under section 7 of the E.C. Act for having violated clause-3 and sub-clause-2 of the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965 and, thereby, sentencing him to undergo S.I. for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (rupees one thousand), in default to undergo S.I. for a further period of one month.

2. The present appeal is pending since 1995. When the matter was listed for hearing, consistently none appeared for the appellant. Therefore, Ms. Rakhi Mishra, who was present in Court, was requested by the Court to assist in the matter as an Amicus Curiae and vide order dated 14.10.2025, she has been appointed as an Amicus Curiae and she rendered her effective assistance in the matter and she has also filed written notes of submission.

3. Heard Ms. Rakhi Mishra, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Mr. A.K. Apat, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 10.04.1991 at 7.00 P.M. when the informant was performing patrolling duty at Beldihi near Charibati, he detected a truck bearing Registration No.MP-26B-2681 proceeding to Angul from Sambalpur side. The truck was carrying 200 bags of cement and 35 bags of rice. On being asked, the appellant disclosed the name of other two accused persons in the truck and by saying that they were the owners of the rice. It is alleged that neither the appellant nor the co-accused persons could show any documents authorising the transportation of rice. Seizure list was prepared at the spot and then the truck was taken to Rairkhol Police Station. The truck along with the documents and 200 bags of cement was given in the zima of one Harish Kumar Tuli and 35 bags of rice were given in the zima of one Manohar Jhansiwala of Rairkhol.

5. On the basis of the aforementioned allegations, investigation was conducted and charge sheet was filed and charge was framed against the appellant for commission of offence under Section 7 of the E.C. Act and on his stance of complete denial and claimed for trial, he was put to trial.

6. In order to establish the charges, the prosecution examined four witnesses. Out of them, P.Ws.1 and 2 were the independent witnesses those who have not supported the prosecution case. Hence, the prosecution case only hinges upon the testimony of P.Ws.3 and 4. P.W.3 was the A.S.I. of Police, who accompanied with P.W.4, the O.I.C. of Rairkhole P.S., while search and seizure of the truck driven by the present appellant from which 35 bags of rice was recovered.

7. The learned trial court by relying upon the seizure list as well as the testimony of P.Ws. 3 and 4 have arrived at the following conclusion:-

“6. Once the case of accused Ganeswar and Madhusudan is segregated from that of the driver, we can take note of the following proved facts to connect the transport of rice to be within the knowledge of the driver. The driver was in charge of the truck in question wherein 35 bags of rice were kept over the cement load. Merely because the accused driver has denied that he was not taking rice in his truck or that his truck has not been checked by the police officials, the same cannot be accepted as a genuine defence plea in face of the cogent, unimpeachable and direct evidence of P.Ws. 3 an