Convictions under the Essential Commodities Act require proofs beyond reasonable doubt; statutory presumptions cannot substitute for foundational evidence.

Judgment :

S.S. Mishra, J.

1. The present criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 29.06.1996 passed by the learned Special Court, Mayurbhanj, Baripada in G.R. Case No. 244 of 1992/T.C. No. 4 of 1993, whereby the appellants have been convicted under Sections 7 and 8 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter “the Act”) for alleged violation of the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each.

2. The present appeal is pending since 30.07.1996. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 03.07.2025, none has appeared on behalf of the appellant. Therefore, this Court requested Ms. Subhashree Sen, learned counsel, who is present in Court to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae. She has readily accepted the same and after obtaining entire record assisted the Court very effectively. This Court records appreciation for the meaningful assistance rendered by Ms. Sen.

3. Heard Ms. Subhashree Sen, learned Amicus Curiae, for the appellants and Mr. Raj Bhusan Dash, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.

4. The appeal was heard on 21.08.2025 and the judgment was reserved. Ms. Sen, learned Amicus Curiae has filed written note of submission on 04.09.2025 whereas Mr. Dash, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State has filed the written argument on 22.08.2025.

5. The prosecution case in brief is that in the night of 28.08.1992 at about 11.20 P.M., while the O.I.C. of Satkosia Police Station, along with the Additional Superintendent of Police was on patrolling duty in connection with investigation of P.S. Case No. 24/92, they detected a truck bearing Registration No.O.R.J.-3659 on the P.W.D. road. On search, it was allegedly found carrying 40 bags of boiled rice weighing about 100 K.Gs. The appellant No.2- Chintamani Sahu, was the driver of the vehicle, and the appellant No.1-Balaram Naik, was present there and had claimed ownership of the rice. As no licence or permit was produced on demand, the rice along with the vehicle was seized, and an F.I.R. was lodged by the O.I.C. himself. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted, and ultimately the appellants were put to trial on their stance of denial.

6. The plea of the appellants is one of complete denial. It was contended that the seized rice did not exclusively belong to appellant No.1, but rather to eight villagers including D.W.1, who had entrusted the rice to be transported from Nandipada to their village for personal use. The defence further relied upon Ext.A and Ext. A/1 (Collector’s order and claim petition) to substantiate such plea.

7. The prosecution examined four witnesses, including the Investigating Officer, while the defence examined one witness, namely D.W.1, Judhistir Mohanty, who claimed ownership of 8 quintals of the rice.

8. The learned trial Court, however, did not accept the defence version and relying upon the statutory presumption under Clause 3(a) of the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965 read with Section 14 of the E.C. Act, convicted both appellants. The relevant portion of the judgment under challenge is extracted herein below:-

“8. The evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 added by the evidence of P.W.4 clearly shows seizure of 40 quintals of rice. All the witnesses have denied the suggestion that 7 to 8 persons were claiming the rice at the time of detection. Only P.W 1 has stated to have seen Dambarudhar Mohanta, Prameswar Mohanta and Judhistira Mohanta in the Police station in the morning, but he paraded his ignorance about the claiming of rice by those persons from the Police. Only Ext. A, the order of the Collec