Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Ori) 638

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
SIBO SANKAR MISHRA, J.
K. Sankar Narayan Subudhi And Another - Appellant
Versus
State of Orissa - Respondent
CRA No.270 of 1999
Decided On : 28-10-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Ms. Shuvra Mohpatra, Amicus Curiae
For the Respondent: Mr. Sarathi Jyoti Mohanty, ASC

Pending application for a license negates mens rea for contravention under the Essential Commodities Act, invalidating conviction based solely on non-compliance.

Headnote:(A) Essential Commodities Act - Section 7 - Orissa Pulses, Edible Oil Seeds and Edible Oils Dealers (Licensing) Order, 1977 - Conviction for contravening licensing requirements - Appellants accused of storing pulses without a valid license - Trial Court convicted based on non-compliance, ignoring pending application for license - The Court found appellants acted bona fide as a license application was pending, negating mens rea under Section 7. (Paras 1, 6, 12, 14)

Facts of the case:
The accused were convicted for storing pulses without the appropriate license. An application for the necessary license was submitted but not processed by the authorities at the time of inspection. The trial court did not consider this aspect when convicting them.

Findings of Court:
The trial court overlooked the pending license application, concluding the appellants lacked mens rea necessary for conviction. The Court ruled that the appellants had taken sufficient steps towards compliance with licensing laws.

Issues: The major issue was whether the appellants' act constituted willful contravention in light of their pending license application.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the existence of a valid license application negates the requisite mens rea for contravention under the Essential Commodities Act. The conviction was overturned due to this material oversight by the trial court.

Result: Criminal Appeal allowed; appellants acquitted.

Table of Content
1. trial court conviction based on insufficient evidence. (Para 1 , 4 , 5)
2. details of the trial court's findings and charges. (Para 6 , 7)
3. arguments made by parties regarding licensing compliance. (Para 8 , 9)
4. court's analysis on licensing process and mens rea. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
5. legal reasoning leading to the appeal's success. (Para 14)
6. conclusion: appeal allowed, acquittal of the appellants. (Para 15 , 16)

Judgment :

S.S. Mishra, J.

The present Criminal Appeal, filed by the appellants under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.10.1999 passed by the learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Berhampur, in 2(c)C.C. No.5/93/ T.R. No. 19/96. By the impugned judgment, the learned trial Court convicted the accused-appellants for contravention of clause 3(2) and 12 of Orissa Pulses, Edible Oil Seeds and Edible Oils Dealers (Licensing) Order, 1977 read with the Notification No. 26011 dated 12.08.1988 which is punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter EC Act for brevity). The appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, whereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.

2. The present appeal is pending since 22.11.1999. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 01.07.2025 and 03.07.2025, none has appeared on behalf of the appellants. Therefore, this Court requested Ms. Shuvra Mohapatra, learned counsel, who is present in Court to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae. She 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 Ms. Mohapatra.

3. Heard Ms. Shuvra Mohapatra, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellants and Mr. Sarathi Jyoti Mohanty, the learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State.

The appeal was heard on 14.10.2025 and the judgment was reserved. Ms. Mohapatra, learned Amicus Curiae has filed written note of submission.

4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 13.04.1990 at about 5:00 P.M., the Inspector of Supplies, Headquarters, Chatrapur, accompanied by the Executive Magistrate, Chatrapur, and other Inspectors, conducted a raid at the mill premises of the accused, K. Sankaranarayana Subudhi, situated at Aska Road, Berhampur. The said accused was admittedly the proprietor of the mill; however, he was not present during the time of inspection. At the time of the raid, accused Hussain Khan was found operating the mill.

During the inspection, the officials detected 93 quintals of biri, 12 quintals of biri dal, 22 quintals of mung, and 8 quintals of mung dal stored within the premises. On being asked, accused Hussain Khan failed to produce any valid licence authorizing the storage of such heavy quantities of pulses beyond the permissible limit. Consequently, the stock was seized under a seizure list prepared in the presence of witnesses, namely, the Executive Magistrate, Inspector K.K. Patnaik, and one Pradeep Kumar Panigrahi and was left in the zima of one Siva Kumar Agarwalla.

Upon further enquiry, accused Hussain Khan stated that they had submitted an application for a licence along with a treasury challan of Rs.100/- under Challan No.150 dated 13.02.1989 towards the licence fee; however, no licence had yet been issued. On verification, the Inspector found that no such application had in fact been made for obtaining a licence. Thereafter, the Inspector lodged the prosecution report against the accused persons, leading to the institution of the present case.

5. The prosecution, in order to substantiate its case, examined 3 witnesses and one witness was examined by the defence. P.W.1 was the then Inspector of Supplies attached to the office of Sub-Collector, Berehampur, P.W.2 was the then Inspector of supplies in the office of the C.S.O., Ganjan, Chatrapur. P.W.3 was the the