Ownership of a vehicle does not impose liability for illegal transport without proof of involvement or wrongdoing, reaffirming principles of burden of proof and reasonable doubt.

Judgment :

S.S. Mishra, J.

The present Criminal Appeal is conjointly preferred by one Prakash Kumar Jena and Duryodhan Patra assailing the judgment and order dated 05.01.1999 passed by the learned Special Judge under E.C. Act-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Khurda convicting them under Section 7 of the E.C. Act and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for six months in T.R. No. 91 of 1996.

2. During pendency of the appeal, it has been informed to the Court by the I.I.C., Chamakhandi Police Station in its report dated 18.07.2025 that appellant no.1-Prakash Kumar Jena has expired on 14.04.2022. Therefore, in the absence of any application under Section 394 Cr.P.C. either by the L.Rs. of the deceased-appellant no.1 or by his next friend, the appeal qua him stands abated. Hence, the present appeal is only confined to appellant no.2-Duryodhan Patra.

3. Heard Ms. A. Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.J. Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.

4. The prosecution report in the present case narrates that on 09.05.1995 at about 1.00 P.M. P.Ws.2 and 4 while performing their enforcement work, they found a truck loaded with C.B. rice bearing Registration No. OR G 9655 parked near the Oil Orissa Premises at Khurda by-pass. The driver was present in the truck. As per the direction of the ACSO, the vehicle was inspected. The driver, who was in-charge of the stock, was asked to produce the valid licence, purchase receipts and other valid documents in support of purchase and transportation of stock, but he failed to produce any document relating to transportation of rice. Written statement was taken from the driver. The driver Prakash Kumar Jena (deceased appellant no.1), who was in-charge of the stock, failed to disclose regarding the destination of the truck loaded with rice. In the absence of the valid document, the raiding team concluded that Prakash Kumar Jena has contravened clause-3 of ORISSA RICE AND PADDY CONTROL ORDER , 1965 and Condition 6 of the Licence, if any, issued to the consequer or the consequence of the rice stock. Being satisfied that Prakash Kumar Jena was illegally transporting the rice of Qntl. 68.61 (net) of C.B. Rice in 140 bags, the prosecution report was prepared. The stock of the rice seized from the vehicle was handed over on zima to Manas Ranjan Pattnaik, Storage Agent of Khurda Block. Zimanama was also prepared and placed on record.

5. It is further alleged that from the R.C. book it was ascertained that the appellant no.2-Duryodhan Patra is the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, on 16.05.1995 notice was issued to the appellant. In reply to the notice, the present appellant, taken a plea that the stock of 140 bags of rice belonging to two agriculturists, namely, Bijaya Behera and Satyanarayan Mishra. It is further alleged that on 27.05.1995, notices were issued to Bijaya Behera and Satyanarayan Mishra, however none of them have responded to the notices.

6. On the basis of the aforementioned allegations, Prakash Kumar Jena (since dead) and the present appellant (Duryodhan Patra) have been put to trial for the alleged commission of offence under Section 7 of the E.C. Act for having contravened clause-3 of ORISSA RICE AND PADDY CONTROL ORDER , 1965.

7. To establish the charges, the prosecution examined four witnesses. The accused-appellants, having taken a stance of complete denial, claimed trial and accordingly they were put to trial.

8. The learned trial court has proceeded to examine as to whether on the date of occurrence both the accused persons were transporting the seized rice