Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 779 (ORI)

Hukum Chand Agarwal v. State of Orissa

2006-11-10

L.MOHAPATRA

body2006
JUDGMENT L. MOHAPATRA, J. — This appeal is directed against the order of conviction recorded by the learned Judge, Special Court, Sambalpur in T.R. No.37 of 1987 convicting the appellant for commission of offence under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act and sentencing him to imprisonment for one year. 2. The case of the prosecution is that P.W.2., S.I. of Ainthapali Police Station received a telephonic information from Town Police Station on 7.7.1987 regarding unlawful storage of edible oil by the appellant. Having received the information, he conducted a raid in the godown of the appellant and seized 140 tins of edible oil kept in the godown. The appellant failed to produce the stock register in support of such possession and took a plea that he was transporting the edible oil to Jharsuguda and since the vehicle went out of order, he kept the oil tins in his godown. On the above allegation, charge sheet was submitted for violation of Clause 3 of the Orissa Pulses Edible Oil Seeds and Edible Oil Dealers Licence Control Order, 1977. P.W.2 was of the view that there has been violation of Clause 3 of the Orissa Pulses Edible Oil Seeds and Edible Oil Dealers Licence Control Order, 1977 and accordingly, the offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act has been committed. 3. The defence plea is complete denial of the prosecution case. 4. According to the appellant, he loaded the edible tins in the truck near Bijaya Trading Company and on the way as the truck suffered a break down, he unloaded the oil tins and kept in the godown. Two witnesses were examined in course of the hearing and none on behalf of the appellant. On the basis of the evidence of the aforesaid two witnesses, the trial Court was of the view that the appellant violated Clause-3 of the Orissa Pulses Edible Oil Seeds and Edible Oil Dealers Licence Control Order, 1977 and accordingly committed an offence under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant challenges the order of conviction and sentence on the ground that the appellant was a transporter and he was supposed to transport the said edible oil from Khetrajpur to Jharsuguda. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant challenges the order of conviction and sentence on the ground that the appellant was a transporter and he was supposed to transport the said edible oil from Khetrajpur to Jharsuguda. On the way the vehicle broke down as a result of which, the tins had to be unloaded and kept in the godown and the truck was sent to the garage for repair. At that point of time a raid having been conducted, the edible oil tins were seized. According to the learned counsel, there is absolutely no material on record to show that either the appellant was a dealer or was running a business in edible oil. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submitted that 140 tins of edible oil having been seized from the godown of the appellant, presumption is that he was running a business of edible oil without licence and, there¬fore,the order of conviction passed by the trial Court need not be interfered with. 6. P.W.1 is the proprietor of the Bijaya Trading Company at Sambalpur,which deals with edible oil as a wholesaler. In his deposition he has stated that on 6.7.1987 one Hanuman Prasad Barik contacted him for purchase of 40 tins of ground-nuts oil for Jalan General Stores of Jharsuguda and 100 tins of refined oil for Laxmi General Stores of Jharsuguda. He has stated that he handed over 140 tins of edible oil to the appellant and Ext. 1 is the credit bill and Ext.2 is the way bill of 40 tins of ground-nut oil. Exts.3 and 4 relate to refined oil. In his cross-exami¬nation this witness has also stated that the appellant is a transport contractor and he had been instructed to deliver the goods at Laxmi General Stores and Jalan General Stores. P.W.2 is the Officer, who conducted raid and he has stated in his evidence that having received the information, a raid was conducted and the edible oil tins were found in the godown of the appellant. He has also stated that the appellant could not produce any licence or document for possession of the said edible oil tins. P.W.2 is the Officer, who conducted raid and he has stated in his evidence that having received the information, a raid was conducted and the edible oil tins were found in the godown of the appellant. He has also stated that the appellant could not produce any licence or document for possession of the said edible oil tins. Clause 3 of the Orissa Pulses and Edible Oils Dealers’ Licence Control Order, 1977 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any State Order, no person shall carry on business as a dealer after the expiration of a period of fifteen days from the coming into force of this clause and in accordance with the terms and condi¬tions of the licence granted under a State Order. There is noth¬ing in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses to show that the appellant was running a business in edible oil as a dealer. No presumption can also be drawn in this regard in view of the evidence of P.W.1 that he had handed over the edible oil tins to the appellant for the purpose of transportation from Sambalpur to Jharsuguda. 7. Under these circumstances, the stand taken by the accused-appellant appears to be more probable. I, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and order of convic¬tion passed by the trial Court. Appeal allowed.