The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; evidence did not establish accused's knowledge or possession of seized kerosene oil, leading to acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

D. Dash, J.

1. The Appellant, by filing this Appeal, has assailed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence 14.09.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum- Special Judge, Rairangpur, in 2(C)CC. Case No.2 of 2000 (T.C.No.28/2000).

The Appellant (accused) thereunder has been convicted for commission of offence under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, the EC Act) for contravention of clause 3, 7(i) and 8 of Odisha Kerosene Control Order, 1962 for being in possession of 280 liters of kerosene oil without any authority. Accordingly, she has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months and pay fine of Rs.1000 in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.

2. Prosecution Case:-

On 04.06.2000, around 11 am, when the Assistant Civil Supply Officer, Bamanghaty, Rairangpur (P.W.1-complainant) with the Sub-Collector, Bamanghaty, Rairangpur and A.B.D.O, Bisoi (P.W.3) raided the Dhaba hotel (roadside hotel) of the accused, they found 280 liters of Kerosene oil to have been stored therein. The same being without any authority as required under the Odisha Kerosene Control Order, 1962, promulgated the State Government by virtue of section 3 of the EC Act, the Kerosene Oil being seized, complaint was filed against the accused.

3. In the Trial, from the side of the prosecution, in total five witnesses has been examined and they are P.W.1 to P.W.5 whereas the documents admitted in evidence and marked Exhibits on behalf of the prosecution are marked Ext.1 to Ext.3.

4. Learned counsel for the Appellant (accused) submitted that the prosecution evidence that the Dhaba in question was being run by the present accused, namely, Surubala Mohapatra, who is a widow has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt by leading clear, cogent and acceptable evidence. According to him, simply because, the husband of the accused was running Dhaba during his life time, as the Dhaba is still running, the Appellant has been taken to be the person in charge of the Dhaba and responsible for running the same, when the fact remains that the house of the accused since is situated behind the Dhaba for her mere presence at the relevant time at the Dhaba even if accepted for the moment, she ought not to have been held to be having the knowledge with regard to the storage of kerosene oil in the said Dhaba. According to him, there is absolutely no evidence that such storage of Kerosene Oil in the Dhaba was within the knowledge of the Appellant and she was in conscious possession of the same so as to be attributed to have stored such quantity for which the presumption arises the same was for sale and thus without any license. He, therefore, submitted that the finding of guilt as has been returned by the with the available evidence cannot be sustained.

5. Learned Counsel for the Respondent-State submitted that the Trial Court upon detail discussion of evidence on record has rightly held the accused to be in possession of 280 liters of Kerosene Oil without any authority. He, therefore, contended that the Appeal does not merit acceptance.

6. Keeping in view the submissions made, I have carefully read the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence which have been impugned in this Appeal. I have also gone through the depositions of P.W.1 to P.W.5 as also the documents which have been admitted in evidence and marked Ext.1 to Ext.3.

7. As per the prosecution case, the Dhaba(roadside hotel) is situated in village Bisoi and Revenue Village of Kadapani. It is stated by P.W.1 that at the time of raid, accused was present at the spot and was managing the Dhaba. This witness (P.W.1) has no