Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 864 (ORI)

STATE OF ORISSA v. ASHOK KUMAR SAHOO

2007-11-14

PRADIP MOHANTY

body2007
JUDGMENT : P. Mohanty, J. - Heard Mr. D.K Mohapatra, Learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department and Mr. Sahoo, Learned Counsel for the Respondent. 2. This application u/s 378 Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed with a prayer to grant leave to appeal against the Order Dated 18.12.2001 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Vigilance, Kendrapara in G.R. Case No. 54 of 1997 acquitting the Respondent of the charges under Sections 7 and 9 of the Essential Commodities Act. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 17.5.1997 at 11.30 A.M. the then Inspector of Vigilance, Kendrapara along with other staff of Vigilance and Civil Supplies Department visited the business premises of the accused-Respondent situated at Mangalpur under Mohakalpada Block. At that time the godown was closed and the accused was called who opened the same. During check 68 bags of wheat and 197 bags of rice were found inside the godown. The stock and the price declaration board kept inside the godown did not display the stock position or the rate. The accused-Respondent could not produce the stock and issue registers and stated to have taken the same to his house for maintenance. He also failed to produce the licence. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed under Sections 7/9 of the Essential Commodities Act and under Sections 468/471/477A Indian Penal Code against the Respondent for violation of Clause 14 of the Orissa Wheat and Wheat product Control Order, 1988 and Clause 3 of the Orissa Declaration of Stock and Price of Essential Commodities Order, 1973. 4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses including the Asst. Civil Supplies Officer and some independent witnesses and proved 35 exhibits. Defence examined none and proved two exhibits i.e. Exts. A & B. 5. The Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kendrapara who tried the case after considering the evidence and other materials on record acquitted the Respondent of the above charges with the finding that the prosecution has failed to bring home the charges to the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 6. Mr. Mohapatra, Learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department submits that the Trial Court ought not to have relied upon prevaricating statement of the untrustworthy hostile witnesses-P. Ws. 6. Mr. Mohapatra, Learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department submits that the Trial Court ought not to have relied upon prevaricating statement of the untrustworthy hostile witnesses-P. Ws. 2 to 10 and ought to have accepted the prayer of the prosecution to send their signatures in the stock as well as Issue Register for comparison with their admitted signatures. The Trial Court should also considered the suspicious conduct of the accused-Respondent, especially regarding maintenance, custody and production of different registers. 7. Mr. Sahoo, Learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that in fact the charge was defective inasmuch as the Specific Clauses of the Control Orders alleged to have been violated were not mentioned. Furthermore, the godown was closed as per the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 12. When the godown was not open, there was no necessity to display the board mentioning the stock position and the price. Therefore, question of violation of Controlled Order does not arise. 8. Perused the copy of the charge supplied by the Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department. Though charge has been framed under Sections 7 and 9 of the Essential Commodities Act nothing has been specifically mentioned as to which clause of the which control order has been violated. It is the settled principle of law that the charge should be specific and definite and explained to the accused. Otherwise, the benefits will go to the accused. The above apart, in the instant case, admittedly the shop was closed when authorities went to check the same. The Respondent was called from his house and opened the shop. Since the shop was closed, there was no necessity to display the board mentioning the stock and the price. 9. In view of the above, the prosecution has failed to bring home the charges to the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and there is no infirmity or illegalities in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court acquitting the accused-Respondent of the above charges. The prayer for leave to appeal is rejected and the CRLLP is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed