A party may be granted probation instead of imprisonment considering long trial durations, age, and societal contributions.

Judgment :

S.S. Mishra, J. The present Criminal Appeal is preferred by appellant assailing the judgment and order dated 17.12.1993 passed by the learned Special Judge, Puri in T.R. Case No. 3 of 1991 convicting the appellant under Section 7 of the E.C. Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo R.I. for one month.

2. Heard Mr. Biswa Kumar Mishra, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Ms. Suvalaxmi Devi, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.

3. The narrative of prosecution report in the present case is that on 26.05.1990, the Assistant Civil Supplies Officer of the Enforcement Squad at Bhubaneswar with his staff and the Supply Inspector, Nimapara were on enforcement duty. In that connection, at about 5 p.m. they reached the market area at Khelar and that area is known as 'Khelar Bazar’. The accused had a grocery shop in that ‘Khelar Bazar’. On verification of the articles in that shop, it was found that the accused was in possession of 14 Qtls. of Black gram, 13 Qtls. of Sugar, 4.65 Otls. of Mustard oil in 31 sealed tins and 3 Qtls. of refined oil in 20 sealed tins. The accused had no license or permit to possess or carry on business with the aforesaid essential commodities. Under such circumstance, the aforesaid articles were weighed and seized. The articles were left in the zimma of the accused. The accused also made a voluntary statement stating about the checking and possession of the aforesaid articles in his shop. It is further the case of the prosecution that by the time of checking, the shop was open and transactions were going on. It is also the case of the prosecution that during the time of verification and checking the accused made a false statement that he had applied for license, which was later on found to be untrue and correct. Accordingly, after completion of the investigation, prosecution report for the aforesaid offences was filed.

4. To establish the charges, the prosecution examined five witnesses. Out of them, P.W.2 was the then A.C.S.O., P.W.3 was the Inspector of Supplies Enforcement Squad, Bhubaneswar, P.W.4 was the Marketing Inspector, Nimapara and P.Ws.1 and 5 were the two independent witnesses. The accused-appellant, having taken a stance of complete denial, claimed trial and accordingly he was put to trial.

5. After analysing the evidence on record, the learned trial court arrived at the following conclusion:-

“15. P.Ws. 2 to 4 being the official witnesses are naturally interested witnesses for the prosecution and at the same time, P.Ws.2 to 4 having no ill-feeling or inimical relationship with the accused, they had no proximate cause to set up a false case against the accused unless there would have been checking and verification in the alleged manner. Under such circumstance, the evidence of P.ws.2 to 4 cannot be thrown over-board simply because they are the official witnesses. However, their evidence is to be scanned and assessed like any other evidence in record to find out whether they are true and trust worthy In this connection, reliance is placed on the ratio propounded in Vol.73(1992) C.L.T. page-28 Subodh Sethi and another-vrs- State.”

16. On a close reading of the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4 it is found that they have consistently stated about the fact of search and seizure in the manner it has been narrated at the outset of the judgment (while stating about the prosecution case). During cross-examination, nothing substantial has been brought out from their mouth to show or suggest that these witnesses are speaking false-hood Thus, the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4 is found to be credible and relied upon. In their evidence, P.W