The court recognized the statutory entitlement for probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, considering the appellant's age, character, and delay in judicial proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

SIBO SANKAR MISHRA, J.

1. The present Criminal Appeal, filed by the appellant is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.04.1993 passed by the learned Special Court, Mayurbhanj, Baripada in 2(c) C.C. Case No.19 of 1991, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act for violation of the Orissa Kerosene Control Order, 1962. On that count, he has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of one month.

2. Heard Mr. Mohammad Faradish, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Aurobinda Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the accused was running a shop near the weekly market at Betnoti. On 25.05.1990, the Marketing Inspector, Betnoti conducted a surprise inspection of the said shop and found that the accused was in possession of 27 litres of kerosene oil stored in three tins within the shop premises. As possession of kerosene oil in excess of 10 litres without a valid dealer’s licence is prohibited, the Marketing Inspector seized the said three tins containing 27 litres of kerosene oil and submitted the prosecution report. 

The accused does not dispute the factum of seizure of the kerosene oil and the tins from his shop. However, his defence is that only 7 litres of kerosene oil belonged to him for personal use, and the remaining 20 litres had been kept in front of his shop by another person without his knowledge or ownership.

4. In order to establish its case, the prosecution has examined two witnesses. P.W.1 was a Headmaster of the local M.E. Schol, and P.W.2 was the Marketing Officer. It is admitted by the witnesses that the accused was running a shop near the weekly market at Betnoti and that, on 25.05.1990, the Marketing Inspector, Betnoti seized two kerosene tins and one soybean tin containing kerosene oil from the shop premises of the accused.

In support of his defence, the accused has examined one witness, D.W.1, namely, Bijaya Kumar Das. He is a front-door neighbour of the accused and, in all likelihood, has deposed with a view to support the defence version.

5. Upon a meticulous scrutiny of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court arrived at the conclusion that 27 litres of kerosene oil, contained in three tins along with certain measuring implements were seized from the shop premises of the accused. Accordingly, it is held that the possession of 27 litres of kerosene oil by the accused stood duly established and, on such finding, the learned trial Court recorded as follows:-

“8. The evidence on record clearly shows that 27 litres of kerosene oil, 3 tins and some measures were seized from the shop of the accused. So the possession of 27 litres of kerosene oil by the accused has been established successfully.

9. The advocate for the accused offered an argument that there is no law or notification prohibiting a person from possessing more than ten litres of kerosene oil for his use. The order dated 19th April, 82 under the Orissa Kerosene Control Order, 1962 clause (8) vide S.R.O. No. 264/82 reads as follows:-

“In supersession of Food and Civil Supplies Department Order No. 20213-PL. IC-26/79, dated the 23rd May, 1979 as amended by Order No. 7635-PL. IC.26/79, dated the 23rd February, 1980 the State Government in exercises of the powers conferred by Clause 8 of the Orissa Kerosene Control Order, 1962 do hereby direct that no person other than a dealer or an oil company shall store or have in his possession kerosene in quantity exceeding ten litres at a ti