Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Ori) 417

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
A.C.BEHERA, J.
Bijaya Kumar Sahu and Another – Appellants
Versus
State of Orissa - Respondent
C.R.A. No.206 of 1996
Decided On : 19-10-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. SJ.R. Dash, A.K. Mohanty and Ms. K.L. Dash, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. T.K. Praharaj, Leaned Standing Counsel.

A search conducted without the proper legal authority by a police officer invalidates any resulting conviction under the Essential Commodities Act, rendering proceedings unsustainable.

Headnote:(A) Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Section 7 - Unauthorized search and seizure - Accused convicted for illegal storage of goods but appeal led to finding that search was conducted without proper authority, rendering conviction unsustainable - Evidence analysis revealed lack of credible support for prosecution case and significant procedural failures. (Paras 2, 23, 24)

(B) Invalid charges - Court emphasized that absence of legal authority for search and seizure by police officer invalidates subsequent proceedings - Case relied on precedents establishing necessity of authorized personnel for legal seizures. (Paras 17, 19, 20, 23)

Facts of the case:
The appellants were convicted for possessing illegal quantities of Hydrolic Oil and Grease without authorization, based on a police search that lacked proper legal grounding.

Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the search and seizure conducted was illegal, thus reversing the conviction and sentencing of the appellants.

Issues: Whether the search and seizure by the police officer complied with legal requirements for authority, and if the evidence supported the charges against the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found the prosecution failed to establish that the police officer was authorized to perform the search, making all evidence obtained inadmissible, leading to the conviction being overturned.

Result: Appeal allowed; the conviction and sentence were set aside; appellants acquitted.

Table of Content
1. background of charges and sentencing. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. details of prosecution's case and seizure. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. defence's stance and trial outcome. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
4. arguments presented by both parties. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
5. legal authority for search and seizure. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 18)
6. court's evaluation of competence and evidence. (Para 17 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
7. appeal outcome and acquittal. (Para 24 , 25)

JUDGMENT :

A.C. Behera, J.

The appellants, by preferring this appeal have called in question to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed on dated 02.07.1996 in Special Case No.42 of 1993 by the District Judge-cum- Judge, Special Court, Dhenkanal-Angul, Dhenkanl arising out of Talcher P.S. Case No.183 of 1993.

2. The appellants have been convicted in Special Case No.42 of 1993 by the learned District Judge-cum-Judge, Special Court, Dhenkanal-Angul, Dhenkanl for commission of offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

3. For the above conviction, they (appellants) have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for four months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each in default to undergo R.I. for one month each.

4. The case of prosecution against the accused persons (appellants of this appeal) before the trial court in Special Case No.42 of 1993 was that, on 04.12.1993 evening, while the OIC of Talcher Police Station, namely, Pravakar Swain was performing patrolling duties at Hatatota Bazar detected about the illegal storing of huge quantity of Hydrolic Oil and Grease by the accused persons in different containers in their wooden cabin for the purpose of selling. For which, he (OIC) entered into that wooden cabin at Hatatota Bazar and searched that cabin. On search, he (OIC) found illegal storing of Hydrolic Oil and Grease by the accused persons. When, on demand of the OIC, the accused persons could not able to produce any authority about their possession of such huge quantity of Hydrolic Oil and Grease, i.e., 340 liters of Hydrolic Oil and 30 Kgs. Grease, then, he (OIC) seized the said Hydrolic Oil and Grease kept in different containers in presence of the witnesses through seizure list (Ext.1/2) and drew up F.I.R. (Ext.2) then and there at the spot and started investigation.

5. During investigation, he (OIC) arrested both the accused persons, examined the witnesses, brought the accused persons along with the seized Hydrolic Oil and Grease kept in the containers from the spot and forwarded the accused persons to the court.

6. After completing the investigation, he (I.O., i.e., OIC, Pravakar Swain) submitted Final Form against the accused persons placing them (accused persons) for their trial before the Special court under Section 7 of The Essential Commodities Act, 1955 alleging the violation of clause(3) of The Orissa Petroleum Products (Sale by Dealers) Order, 1979 and The Orissa High Speed Diesel(Dealers Licensing) Order, 1979.

7. Accordingly, both the accused persons faced trial before the Special court in Special Case No.42 of 1993 having been implicated with an offence under Section 7 of The Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for violation of clause(3) of The Orissa Petroleum Products (Sale by Dealers) Order, 1979 and The Orissa High Speed Diesel(Dealers Licensing) Order, 1979.

8. The plea of the defence was one of complete denial and false implication of the accused persons.

9. The specific plea/case of the defence was that, nothing was seized from the possession of the accused persons, but, they (accused persons) have been implicated (entangled) into the case falsely by the OIC Talcher Police Station.

10. On conclusion of hearing, the trial court (Special Court) found both accused persons guilty for the offence under Section 7 of The Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and convicted them thereunder and for such conviction, passed order of sentence against them as aforesaid on dated 02.07.1996 in Special Case No.42 of 1993.

11. In order to assail the impugned judgment o