The court concluded that insufficient evidence to prove ownership and adequacy of the prosecution's case results in benefit of doubt for the accused, leading to acquittal.

Judgment :

S.S. Mishra, J.

The present Criminal Appeal, filed by the appellant under Section 374 of the Cr. P.C., is directed against the judgment and order dated 03.08.2001 passed by the learned Special Judge, Koraput at Jeypore in T.R. Case No.44 of 1997, whereby the learned trial Court has convicted the accused-appellant for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (herein after ‘E.C. Act’ for brevity) and, accordingly, sentenced him to undergo R.I. for three months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand), in default, to undergo R.I. for a further period of fifteen days.

2. Heard Miss Monalisa Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Ms. Sarita Maharana, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondent-State.

3. The prosecution has charged the appellant for the alleged commission of the offence under Section 7 of the E.C. Act, 1955.

4. The prosecution case in brief and terse is that on 20.09.1996, the Inspector of Supplies of the Office of the Civil Supplies Officer, Jeypore along with other Officers of the Supply Department inspected the business premises of the accused situated at the Main Road, Similiguda. The accused was running business in his shop in the name and style as “M/s. Srinivas Automobiles”. During the inspection, it was found that the accused had kept stocks of lubricating oils and greases in his shop. He was also found transacting business in lubricating oils and greases. On being asked, the accused could not produce any valid license issued by the competent authority as required under Clause 3 of the Lubricating Oil and Greases (Processing, Supply and Distribution Regulation) Order, 1987. Hence, the Inspector of Supplies seized the entire stock of lubricating oils and greases in presence of the other Officers of the Supply Department as well as available independent witnesses and the accused. A seizure list was prepared at the spot. Since the accused was in illegal possession and business of oils and greases, the Inspector of Supplies filed Prosecution Report and on denial of charges, he has been put to trial.

5. The prosecution, in order to bring home the charges against the accused examined five witnesses. Out of which, P.W.5 was the Inspector of Supplies, Jeypore, who had filed the Prosecution Report against the accused in this case. P.Ws. 2 and 3 were the two Marketing Inspectors, who claimed to have accompanied P.W.5 to the shop of the accused. P.Ws.1 and 4 were claimed to be the independent witnesses to the inspection of the shop of the accused and seizure of the lubricating oils and greases. The defence did not adduce any evidence in support of its case.

6. The learned trial Court, while appreciating the evidence on record, formed the conclusion, which is largely reflecting in paragraphs-9 and 10 of the judgment of the learned trial Court under challenge. For ready reference, the said paragraphs are reproduced hereunder:

“9. The oral evidence on record is further corroborated by documentary evidence. The seizure List-Ext.2 bears the signature of the accused. No explanation is offered by the accused as to how his signature could find place on the Seizure List. The signature of the accused also appears on the Zimanama- Ext.1 under which the accused received the seized lubricating oils and greases on zima. The genuineness of these two documents have not been questioned. A witness may come and lie, but a document cannot. In absence of any explanation from the defence regarding the existence of the signatures of the accused on Exts.1 and 2, it must be h