Burden of proof on the accused to explain possession of essential commodities; conviction set aside due to doubt in prosecution's case regarding ownership.

Judgment :

S.S. Mishra, J.

The appellant in the present case has assailed the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 27.08.1996 passed by the learned Special Judge, Koraput, Jeypore in T.R. Case No.33 of 1994, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 7 (1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as the “E.C. Act”) and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred), in default of payment of the fine amount, to undergo further R.I. for a period of one month.

2. Heard Ms. Zenith Wallace, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Raj Bhusan Dash, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2-State.

3. The prosecution alleged that on 18.12.1992, the Civil Supplies Raiding party along with the Executive Magistrate went to check the shop-cum-go-down of the appellant situated at the A.E.F. Market, Sunabeda at about 9 A.M. The raiding party sealed the shop-cum-go- down of the accused appellant, as the same was then closed. Subsequently, when the appellant arrived, the shop was reopened in presence of the witnesses.

4. It is alleged that in the shop-cum-go-down, 20 quintals 59 kgs. 500 grams of pulses of different varieties and 2 quintals 50 kgs. of salt was stored. On demand, the accused appellant could not produce any documents justifying his possession of the commodities. Therefore, the complainant effected the seizure of the said goods vide Ext.1.

5. The statement of the accused appellant was also recorded and exhibited as Ext.3. On the basis of the aforementioned allegation, the prosecution alleged that the accused appellant has contravened Clause-3 (1) of the Orissa Pulses, Edible Oil Seeds and Edible Oil Dealers’ (Licensing) Order, 1977 and Clasuse-3 of the Orissa Declaration of Stocks and Price of Essential Commodities Order, 1973.

6. The prosecution, in order to establish its case, has examined two witnesses. P.W.1 was the Executive Magistrate and P.W.2 was the Civil Supplies Inspector.

7. The accused appellant has admitted the possession of the seized stock. However, he took the stand that the stock was found stored in the go-down, was belonging to one Sriram Murty (D.W.2) and one Bujingi Rao (D.W.3). He has contended that on 17.12.1992 night, in fact, the stock belonging to three persons including himself arrived in a truck and the truck driver told that the truck could not enter into the narrow lane. So he has unloaded the entire stock in his go-down telling that those two other persons would take their stocks in the next morning. Having admitted the stock and seizure, the appellant has also taken a stand that since the shop was closed, there was no necessity for him to display any stock and the price in the board. This stand of the appellant is also reflecting in the statement of the accused/appellant recorded under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C. On the basis of the aforementioned stand taken by the appellant and the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, the learned trial Court proceeded and on appreciation of the evidence, arrived at a conclusion that the accused appellant has possessed pulses of various types of exceeding the prescribed limit of 10 quintals and as such, he has contravened Clause-3 (1) of the Orissa Pulses, Edible Oil Seeds and Edible Oil Dealers’ (Licensing) Order, 1977. Hence, he is liable for the offence punishable under Section 7 (1)(a) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act. Accordingly, the accused appellant was sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred), in default of payment of th