Convictions under the Essential Commodities Act require proof of mens rea; minor violations without intentional wrongdoing should be treated leniently, potentially allowing the benefit of probation.

Judgment :

S.S. Mishra, J.

The present Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.11.2000 passed by the learned Special Judge under the Essential Commodities Act, Khurda, in T.R. No.103 of 1996 (arising out of Vigilance G.R. Case No.11 of 1996). By the said judgment, the learned Special Judge convicted the appellant under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for contravention of Clauses II, III & IV of his licence bearing No.4/79 read with Sections 3 and 10 of the Essential Commodities Act, and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months.

2. Heard Ms. Anwesha Mishra, learned counsel, for the appellant and Mr. Sarathi Jyoti Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the appellant was running a wholesale business of super kerosene oil under the name and style of M/s. A.K. Sahoo at Balugaon and held a valid licence bearing No.4/79, renewed up to 31.03.1996. On 26.02.1996 at about 4.30 P.M., a vigilance team led by U. Rama Rao, Inspector of Vigilance, Khurda (P.W.9) along with P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 7, and 8 conducted a surprise inspection of the appellant’s business premises situated over Plot No.55, Khata No.113 of Mouza Samantarapur in Balugaon Bazar. The inspection revealed that against a book balance of 3,700 litres of super kerosene oil, 2,685 litres were physically found inside the business premises. Further, 860 litres of super kerosene oil were found stored in a tanker located near the appellant’s house, which was situated about one kilometre away from the licensed business premises. Even after taking the latter quantity into account, there was still a shortage of 155 litres of super kerosene oil, for which the appellant allegedly could not furnish a satisfactory explanation.

4. Consequently, the stock of kerosene oil, together with the account books and related documents, was seized under proper seizure lists, and on completion of investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offence.

5. The appellant denied the allegations and claimed that the case was foisted against him due to political rivalry. He pleaded that there was no deliberate contravention of licence conditions and that the kerosene stored at his residence belonged to the same stock, which was temporarily shifted for convenience. One defence witness, D.W.1, namely Satara Kalapahad, was examined in support of the appellant’s case.

6. The prosecution examined nine witnesses. P.W.1 Sarat Kumar Paramguru, P.W.2 Nityananda Naik, P.W.3 Sk. Muktarul Hossain Hozari, P.W.7 Kishore Chandra Moharana, and P.W.8 Sanatan Bari corroborated the fact of the raid and the detection of the shortage. P.W.4 Lambodar Das, the R.I. of Balugaon Circle, proved that the business premises and the residential premises of the appellant stood over different plots and separate revenue khatas. P.W.5 Sudarshan Mishra, Junior Clerk, proved the seizure of the duplicate licence (Ext.6), and P.W.9 U. Rama Rao, the investigating officer, narrated the entire course of investigation and lodged the F.I.R.

7. However, it is pertinent to note that P.W.6 Laxman Das, a worker of the appellant’s depot, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. His evidence did not contribute to the prosecution’s version and was, therefore, of no assistance in proving the alleged shortage.

8. On the other hand, D.W.1 Satara Kalapahad, who accompanied the vigilance team during the raid, deposed that against the shortage of 1015 litres of super ker