Prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused unlawfully stored kerosene oil, which was not established in this case, leading to the allowance of the appeal.

JUDGMENT :

D.Dash, J.

1. The Appellant, by filing this Appeal, has assailed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28th January, 2002 passed by the learned Special Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada under section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1962 (for short, ‘the E.C. Act’) in G.R. Case No.9 of 2000 (T.C. No.40 of 2000).

The Appellant has been convicted for commission of offence under section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the E.C.Act and accordingly, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months for commission of the said offence.

2. Prosecution case is that on 01.04.2000 around 10.30 p.m., the Civil Supply Officials with the help of the police staff conducted a raid in the houses situated at village Jugal. Having conducted the search and seizure in the said village as well as in the shop and houses of the accused persons; stock of kerosene oil stored therein were found. It is stated that the house of this accused being searched, 1550 liters of kerosene oil was found to have stored and seized. This accused, therefore, faced the trial for commission of offence under section 7 (1)(a)(ii) of the E.C. Act for contraventim of Clause-3 and 8 of Odisha Kerosene Control Order, 1962.

3. Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that as per the prosecution case this Appellant was a retailer and he was not present at the time of search and seizure and after that he having returned home when has submitted all his documents, such as, the stock registers, sale registers etc., the prosecution having not stated that the accused at the relevant time as the retailer was not entitled to keep/store 1550 liters of kerosene, the Trial Court ought not to have held the accused guilty for commission of said offence under section 7 of the E.C. Act for having contravened Clause-3 and 8 of the Odisha Kerosene Control Order, 1962 by said storage which he being a retailer cannot be said to be having no authority.

4. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the seizure of the kerosene oil of 1550 liters from the house of the accused having been proved when the accused has failed to explain that such possession as was lawful; the finding of conviction has to sustain.

5. Keeping in view the submissions made, I have carefully read the impugned judgment of conviction and have also extensively travelled through the depositions of the witnesses (P.Ws.1 to P.W.9).

6. The accused, as per the prosecution case was a kerosene oil retailer in the locality. The accused being asked has produced all his stock registers and sale registers before the Civil Supply Officials. Here the prosecution case is for violation of Clause-3 and 8 of the Odisha Kerosene Control Order, as it is stated that the accused has not adhered to the terms and conditions of the license. The accused having produced all the registers in respect of sale and receipt of the kerosene oil as the Retail License Holder, the prosecution has not led any evidence that said seized quantity of kerosene oil was in excess of the position as per the transactions noted and reflected in the registers so as to say that the accused at that relevant time was not entitled to store said seized quantity of kerosene oil.

In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence impugned in this Appeal cannot be sustained.

7. Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.01.2002 passed in G.R. Case No.9/2000 (T.C. No.40/2000), are hereby set aside.