THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CRA No. 116 of 1999

(In the matter of an application under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure

Code)

Ramesh Chandra Sahu ……. Appellant

-Versus-

State of Orissa ……. Respondent

For the Appellant : Mr. Satyabrata Mohanty-1, Amicus Curiae

For the Respondent : Mr. Sarathi Jyoti Mohanty, ASC

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA

Date of Hearing: 12.08.2025 :: Date of Judgment:19.08.2025

S.S. Mishra, J. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.05.99 passed by the learned Special Judge, Keonjhar in Spl. Case No.19 of 1993, whereby the learned trial Court has convicted the accused-appellant for the offence punishable under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act

and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for Three months and pay a fine of Rs.500/- i.d. to undergo further R.I. of one month more.

Prosecution and Conviction

2. The prosecution case is that on receiving information that the accused, Ramesh Chandra Sahu, was dealing in kerosene without authority at Laxminarayan Bazar, Ghasipura, the Vigilance Inspector of Balasore Division, along with the Sub-Collector and A.C.S.O. of Anandapur, conducted a raid in his grocery shop on 15.01.1993 at about 7.00 P.M. During the search, 16 litres of kerosene oil were found stored, for which the accused could not produce any valid authority. The kerosene was seized in the presence of the accused and witnesses, and a copy of the seizure list was given to him after obtaining his signature (Ext. 4). The accused was arrested and released on bail on the same day. Later, under the orders of the Collector, Keonjhar, the seized kerosene was sold and the sale proceeds were deposited in the Treasury. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act. The plea of the accused is one of denial. He has stated that he had no such shop as claimed by the prosecution and that his signature on the seizure list was taken on a blank paper at his house.

3. In order to prove the charge the Prosecution had examined 4 witnesses out of them P.W.1 was the then Asst. Civil Supply Officer, P.W.2 was the then Supply Inspector, one of the officer who accompanied P.W.4 the Investigating officer being directed by the Sub- Collector, Anandpur and P.W.3 was the Peon attached to the office of the Sub-Collector.

4. Relying mainly upon the testimonies of the official witnesses and in the absence of any such seizure witness the trial court convicted the accused appellant U/s. Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 3 months and pay a fine of Rs.500/- i.d to further undergo R.I. for 1 month.

5. Aggrieved by the above judgement of conviction and order of sentence, the appellant has assailed the same in the present appeal.

6. Heard Mr Satyabrata Mohanty-1, learned Amicus Curiae for the Appellant and Mr. Sarathi Jyoti Mohanty, Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.

Submission by the Counsel for the appellant

7. Mr. Mohanty, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant, contended that there was no independent witness to the alleged seizure of kerosene. He submitted that the case rests only on the testimony of official witnesses and no independent witness has been examined by the Prosecution. During the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer, it revealed that he made inconsistent statements regarding the presence of independent witnesses. The relevant portion is reproduced below:

“5. I have not seized any documents regarding ownership of the shop of the accused. I have not cited any independent witnesses. I have not called any independent witnesses to witness the search and seizure (Volunters: In vigilance case as per practice we requisitioned the services of only Govt. Officer to assist us in search and seizure.)

I have noted in the case diary that I called the independent witnesses gathered there but they did not c