Conviction under the Essential Commodities Act requires direct evidence linking the accused to the crime; the absence of such evidence warrants acquittal.

Judgment :

S.S. Mishra, J.

The present Criminal Appeal has been filed conjointly by Krutibas Giri and Basudev Murmu assailing the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 01.03.2000 passed by the learned Special Judge-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Rairangpur, District- Mayurbhanj in G.R. Case No.313 of 1997 (T.C. No.6/1998) convicting the appellants under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and sentencing them to undergo R.I. for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred), in default, to undergo R.I. for a further period of 15 days (fifteen days) each.

2. Consistently none has appeared for the appellants. When the matter was taken up on 08.07.2025 and 15.07.2025, it was indicated in the order that, if none appears for the appellants on the next date of listing, Amicus Curiae will be appointed to assist the Court in the matter. Accordingly, when the matter was taken up on 24.07.2025, again none had appeared for the appellants. Hence, Ms. Bidisha Sahu, Advocate has been appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court in the matter.

3. Heard Ms. Bidisha Sahu, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellants and Mr. S.J. Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondent-State.

4. During pendency of the appeal, the appellant no.2-Basudev Murmu has reported to have expired. Therefore, in absence of any application under Section 394 of the Cr.P.C. by either the legal heirs of the deceased appellant no.2 or his next friend, the appeal stood abated vide order dated 15.07.2025 qua appellant no.2- Basudev Murmu. Hence, the present appeal is confined to the appellant no.1-Krutibas Giri only.

5. The prosecution case in terse and brief is that, there was a provision of distribution of the BPL rice in the Grama Panchayat Office at Rairangpur. The cost of the rice per kilogram was Rs.2/-. On 14.08.1997, at about midnight, the deceased appellant no.2 was carrying 40 to 42 kgs. of BPL rice and going away from the Panchayat Office allegedly stealing the rice. On the way, he was caught by some villagers and detained till the next morning. The police was informed. The deceased appellant no.2 disclosed to the villagers that he was taking the rice in connivance with the appellant no.1, who was the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat. On this information, the case was registered on the allegation of illegal transportation of 45 kgs. of rice.

6. The defence took a stance of complete denial and stated that the case has been falsely foisted on them with an ulterior motive and the stock remains intact.

7. The prosecution examined eight witnesses to bring home the charge. P.W.1 was the informant in the present case. P.W.2 was present at the time of the occurrence whereas, P.W.3 was examined as post- occurrence witness. P.W.4 is the son of the present appellant, who stated to have handed over the key of the Panchayat Office go-down to the Sub-Collector. P.W.5 was the witness, who has opened the go-down in presence of the Sub-Collector and recovered Q.3.56 kgs. and 250 grams of rice and prepared the seizure list vide Ext.3. P.W.7 was the ACSO, who has deposed that the villagers have detained the deceased appellant no.2 and recovered 40 to 45 kgs. of rice. He has also deposed that the appellant no.2 confessed that he was carrying the rice at the instance of the Secretary of the Panchayat Office, i.e., the present appellant no.1. P.W.8 was the Investigating Officer.

8. The learned trial Court, after analyzing the entire evidence on record, arrived at the following findings:

“7. P.W.1 has stated that on 14.8.1997