The court determined that the appellant's clean history and prolonged trial justified probation instead of imprisonment for selling kerosene without a license.

JUDGMENT :

S.S. Mishra, J.

The present Criminal Appeal, filed by the appellants under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C., is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.01.2000 passed by the learned Special Judge, Rairangpur, Mayurbhanj in G.R. Case No.195 of 1998 (T.C. No.9 of 1998), whereby the learned trial Court has convicted the accused-appellants for the contravention of the Orissa Kerosene Control Order, 1962 which is an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter ‘E.C. Act’ for brevity) and, accordingly, sentenced them to undergo R.I. for one year besides fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to further undergo R.I. for one month each.

2. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 31.07.2025, Mr. Dash, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State has submitted a report that he has received instruction from the I.I.C., Rairangpur Town P.S., which indicates that the appellant No.1-Rajkishore Ram has died since 23.05.2019. Accordingly, the present appeal qua the appellant No.1 stands abated. Hence, the appeal is considered only in respect of appellant No.2-Jaya Prakash Ram.

3. As per the plain paper F.I.R. (Ext.3) lodged by the O.I.C., Badampahad P.S. (P.W.2), on 07.06.1998, while patrolling with Constable P.C. Sahu, he found the accused persons selling Kerosene Oil illegally near Badampahad P.H.D. pump house No.1. Upon inquiry, the accused failed to produce any valid licence. One Murali Ho confirmed purchasing 2.5 litres of Kerosene at Rs.10 per litre, while the actual price was Rs.3.50. The O.I.C. seized a total of 200 litres of Kerosene oil along with measuring instruments and containers from the possession of the accused. A requisition to the Marketing Inspector confirmed that no kerosene had been officially issued to them. Finding violation of the Orissa Kerosene Control Order, 1962, a case was registered, and after investigation, charge sheet was filed under Section 7 of the E.C. Act.

4. The prosecution in order to bring home charges examined seven witnesses. P.W.2 made the seizure, P.Ws.1, 3 & 4 were present at the time of the seizure, P.W.6 has submitted the charge-sheet and P.W.7 was the then Marketing Inspector.

5. The learned trial Court analysed the evidence on record in detail and returned the following findings:-

“7. P.W.2 who was the O.I.C. of Badampahad P.S. has stated that on 7.6.98 while he was patrolling at about 12 noon he found the accused persons were selling Kerosene oil at Dhangidimata weekly market near Badampahad P.H.D. Pump house and the spot was on the western side of the P.H.D. Pump house not Badampahad. On his demand the accused persons failed to show him any authority about the selling of Kerosene Oil. Thereafter, he seized 4 tins; each containing 20 Lts of Kerosene Oil, 2 empty tins, one 500ml. litre measure, one 200ml litre measure and one tin funnel from accused Jayaprakash Ram vide Ext. 1. Ext.1/3 is the signature of accused. Jayaprakash Ram on Ext.1. Further he has stated that he seized at the same time 6 tins each containing 20 Lts of Kerosene oil, 2 empty tins, one 500ml litre measure one 200 ml. litre measure and one funnel from the possession of accused Raj Kishore Ram vide Ext.2. Ext.2/2 is his signature and Ext.2/3 is the signature of accused Raj Kishore Ram. He knows the signatures of the accused persons. After preparation of the seizure lists, he gave the copies of the seizure list to the accused persons respectively. One Murali Ho told him that he had purchased one litre of Kerosene oil from accused Raj Kishore Ram @ Rs.5/-. While he was at the spot, B.D.O., Kusumi Block reached at the spot. In cross-examination he has stated that i