SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Ori) 471

THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
SIBO SANKAR MISHRA, J.
Neelo Kontho @ Neelakantha Sadangi & Another - Petitioners
Versus
State of Orissa - Opp. Party
CRLREV No.196 of 2011
Decided On : 16-07-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. T.K. Mishra, Adv.
For the Opp. Party : Mr. B.K. Ragada, Addl. Government Adv.

The court confirmed conviction under the Essential Commodities Act while granting probation to the petitioner, acknowledging valid evidence despite some witness contradictions.

Headnote:(A) Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Section 7 - Kerosene Control Order, 1962 - Violation of possession limits of kerosene - Prosecution confirmed conviction against the petitioners based on the testimony of the Marketing Inspector and confessions of co-accused - Arguments regarding insufficient evidence and procedural irregularities dismissed - The conviction was upheld but penalty modified under the Probation of Offenders Act, releasing petitioner No.1 while imposing supervision for one year. (Paras 2-16)

(B) Evidence - Statements made by the Marketing Inspector and confessions are admissible despite the lack of support from independent witnesses; evidence not deemed hostile. (Paras 9-14)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners were accused of illegally possessing kerosene beyond permissible limits, resulting in conviction under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act based on evidence from the Marketing Inspector and confessions of co-accused.

Findings of Court:
Conviction confirmed; however, benefit of probation granted to petitioner No.1 recognizing his age and circumstances of the case.

Issues: The key issues were the adequacy of the evidence provided and any procedural errors in the trial.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held valid the trial courts' reliance on the Marketing Inspector's evidence and confessions, affirming that procedural issues did not warrant overturning the conviction.

Result: Criminal Revision partly allowed; petitioner No.1 released under probation.

Table of Content
1. overview of prosecution and offenses (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. details of evidence and accusations (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
3. arguments presented by the parties (Para 8 , 9)
4. court's analysis of procedural issues (Para 10 , 11)
5. evaluation of prosecution's evidence (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
6. final ruling and implications (Para 15 , 16 , 17)

JUDGMENT :

S.S. Mishra, J.

The present Criminal Revision under Section 401 read with Section 397 Cr.P.C. is arising out of the judgment and order dated 03.01.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jeypore in Criminal Appeal No.03 of 2010, whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.07.2009 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Kotpad in 2(c) CC No.4 of 2001/T.R. No.543 of 2001 has been confirmed.

2. The prosecution alleged that on 16.02.2000 at about 5 P.M., when the Marketing Inspector Nityananda Padhi, P.W.4 apprehended the stock of kerosene being carried out in two bi-cycles, on demand, the carriers could not produce the valid documents in support of such possession of kerosene which was beyond the permissible limit. After measuring the kerosene stocks, he seized two plastic jerry canes containing 55 liters and 20 liters of kerosene respectively. One tin containing 15 liters of kerosene was recovered from the possession of accused Shyama Ghana Pujari and 215 liters of kerosene in toto was recovered from the possession of accused Sanjay Kumar Dian along with their bicycles in presence of the witnesses. He executed the seized articles in zima of the sub-wholesaler Nilakantha Patnaik in presence of the witnesses. Both the accused persons confessed their guilt before the Marketing Inspector and other witnesses. They confessed that they were carrying kerosene on behalf of the accused Nilakantha Sadangi of Kotpad. During further investigation, the Marketing Inspector raided the shop-cum-residence of the accused Nilakantha Sadangi of Kotpad on 19.02.2000. The said accused confessed his guilt describing that the accused Manoj Kumar Khila cum R.C. holder of Camp No.7 being under S.B. Nuagaon G.P. lifted kerosene stock on 16.02.2000 and delivered those stocks to him. The Marketing Inspector proceeded to the fair price shop of R.C. holder Sri M.K. Khilla. The said accused confessed his guilt before the Marketing Inspector stating that his centre was being managed practically and financially by accused Nilakantha Sadangi of Kotpad. On 15.02.2000 he purchased 300 liters of kerosene from sub-wholesaler, Kotpad which was lifted by him on 16.02.2000 and the entire stock was handed over to the accused-petitioner No.1 Nilakantha Sadangi. Again on 22.02.2000 the Marketing Inspector proceeded to the house of the petitioner and seized the retail license bearing No.21 valid up to 31.03.2000 issued by the Sub-Collector, Jeypore in favour of M.K. Khila along with Cash Memo No.40 dated 15.02.2000, 220 liters of kerosene in a barrel container, one kerosene tally register of the accused M.K. Khila, one stock register, one sales register belonging to M.K. Khila in presence of the witnesses. Soon after the seizure, he executed zima of seized kerosene in favour of sub-wholesaler N. Patnaik in presence of the witnesses. Since the accused persons Shyam Ghana Pujari and S.K. Dian violated Clause 8 of the Orissa Kerosene Control Order, 1962, the accused-petitioners Nilakantha Sadangi and M.K. Khila violated Clause No.7(1) and 8 of the Orisssa Kerosene Control Order, 1962 r/w S.R.O. No.264/82, dated 19.04.1982, the Marketing Inspector submitted Prosecution Report under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

3. Accordingly, a complaint bearing 2(c) CC No.04 of 2001 was filed against the petitioners and three other co-accused persons for the alleged offence punishable under Section-7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1972 for alleged illegal possession of kerosene beyond permissible limit without any valid license.

4. The prosecution examined 4 witnesses to establish its case and exhib

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top