JUDGMENT The judgment and order dated 15.11.1993 passed by the Spe¬cial Judge, Dhenkanal in Special case No.2 of 1992 convicting the accused-appellant under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (in short E.C. Act) for contravention of Clause 3 of the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965 and sentencing him there under to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-i.d. to undergo R.I. for one month more. 2. Accused is the proprietor of a grocery shop after the name “Maa Bhabani Store” located at Mahavir Bazar, Dhenkanal. On 16.1.1992 at about 4 P.M. Sambalpur Vigilance Sales Tax staff with the assistance of the staff of Vigilance squad, Dhenkanal, raided the said grocery shop. On inspection the accused was found in possession of 4.5 quintals of raw (Arua) rice and 22 quintals of boiled (Usuna) rice total 26.5 quintals in his shop premises without being backed by any authority for the same. As he violat¬ed Clause 3 of Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965 read with Section 3 of E.C. Act, the Inspector of Vigilance squad Dhenkanal seized the said rice and prepared seizure list in respect thereof. Thereafter, he submitted a report to the Super¬intendent of Police Vigilance, Sambalpur, on whose direction the case was registered. The Superintendent of Police Vigilance, Sambalpur also directed the Inspector Vigilance Squad, Dhenkanal to investigate into the case, accordingly he investigated into it and after completion of investigation, finding a prima facie case, submitted charge sheet against the accused. The plea of the accused is one of denial. According to him he had been to Cuttack on the date of raid and returned back to his shop at 5 p.m. to see the raiding party making the seizure. It is his specific plea that out of the seized rice, 8.5 quintals belonged to him and the remaining rice to his brother Gopal and Prafulla Kumar Sahoo (D.W.3), who had kept the same on the back side of his shop room, in his absence for being transported to their village in Similia. It is his further plea that D.W.3 had purchased the said 18 quintals of rice from Hindustan Traders Malgodown, Cuttack and that he was not aware of the same at the time of raid. 3. It is his further plea that D.W.3 had purchased the said 18 quintals of rice from Hindustan Traders Malgodown, Cuttack and that he was not aware of the same at the time of raid. 3. In order to establish its case, prosecution examined 4 witnesses in all, of whom P.W.1 is the Sales Tax Inspector Vigi¬lance, P.Ws 2 and 3 are two independent witnesses to the seizure and P.W.4 is the Inspector of Vigilance. To prove his stand accused examined 5 witnesses, of whom D.W.1 is said to have unloaded 18 quintals of rice from a truck and stacked the same behind the shop room of the accused, D.W.2 is said to be an accountant of Hindustan Traders Malgodown, Cuttack, wherefrom 18 quintals of rice was said to have been purchased, D.W.3 is the brother of accused, who deposed that on 15.1.92 he purchased 18 quintals of rice, 10 quintals for him and 8 quintals for his brother, Gopal, from Hindustan Traders Malgodown, Cuttack. D.W.4 is the Octroi Superintendent, Dhenkanal and D.W.5 is the Sales man of the accused, who deposed regarding the absence of accused from Dhenkanal on 16.1.1992. Besides adducing oral evidence, both prosecution and the defence also proved some documents. After assessing the evidence both oral and documentary, the trial Court could not accept the defence plea and as such passed the order of conviction and sentence as stated earlier. Being aggrieved with the said order of conviction and sen¬tence the accused (hereinafter referred to as ‘appellant’) has preferred the present appeal. 4. There is no dispute that on 16.1.1992 the business premises of the appellant was raided by the Vigilance Sales Tax staff, Sambalpur and the Vigilance squad of Dhenkanal and recov¬ered 26.5. quintals of rice. There is also no dispute that the appellant was not licenced dealing in rice during the period of raid. So, the only question to be determined is, whether the trial Court was justified in discarding the defence plea. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the trial Court committed gross error in not accepting the statement of P.Ws 2 and 3 that the accused did not sale rice and at the time of seizure and that no rice was exhibited for sale during that time. It transpire from the evidence of P.Ws. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the trial Court committed gross error in not accepting the statement of P.Ws 2 and 3 that the accused did not sale rice and at the time of seizure and that no rice was exhibited for sale during that time. It transpire from the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 4 that two bags of boiled rice were kept open for sale in front of the shop room of appellant, but on perusal of the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3, it is found that no such rice was exposed for sale. In his cross examination, P.W.2 admitted that he had not seen the appellant dealing in rice during last 10 to 15 years. Similarly, it transpires from the evidence of P.W.3 that he did not see the appellant selling rice on the relevant date. More¬over, the allegation of exposing some rice for sale does not find place in the F.I.R., so also in the seizure list. As such, it cannot be definitely held that the appellant was found to have exposed some rice for sale. But to attract clause 3 of Orissa Rice and Paddy Control order, prosecution is not bound to prove that the accused was selling rice or paddy. If it is established that more than 10 quintals of rice or paddy or rice and paddy taken together was in possession of a person, he would be deemed to have violated the said provision, unless he is a dealer. For better appreciated, the relevant provisions are quoted below. Clause 3(1) of the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965 reads as follows : “No person shall act as a dealer except under and in accord¬ance with a licence issued in that behalf by the licensing au¬thority.”: Sub clause (2) of Clause 3 lays down : “For the purpose of this clause any person, who stores rice or paddy or rice and paddy taken together in quantity exceeding ten quintals inside the State of Orissa, shall, unless the con¬trary is proved, be deemed to act as a dealer.” 6. Admittedly the appellant had no licence to deal in rice during the relevant period. Admittedly the appellant had no licence to deal in rice during the relevant period. So if it is established that in fact he had kept 26.5 quintals of rice in his shop premises or in the back side of the shop room, he shall be liable under Section 7 of the E.C., even if it is held that in fact he had not exposed any rice for sale. As stated earlier, there is no dispute that 26.5 quintals of rice was recovered from the shop premises of the appellant. Now, it is to be seen whether in fact he himself had stored the same. On perusal of the evidence of D.W.3, brother of the appellant, it is found that on 15.1.1992 he purchased 18 bags of rice, 10 bags for himself and 8 bags for his brother, Gopal, from Hindustan Traders, Malgodown, Cuttack and was granted with two cash memos vide Exts. B and C. As no truck was readily avail¬able, he kept the rice in the shop itself and on the next date carried the same towards Similia in a truck, bearing Regd. No.WMK-8110, which usually carries coal, and paid octroi tax at the check gate of Dhenkanal, under two receipts marked Exts. J and J/1. The driver complained of delay and refused to carry the rice to village Similia. Hence, with the help of D.W.1, D.W.3 got the rice unloaded at Dhenkanal. It further transpires from the evidence of D.W.3 that when he went to store the rice in the shop of appellant, it was found to be closed and the appellant absent. However, the son of the appellant brought the key of the shop room and after opening the shop, he stacked the rice bags on the back side of it. In the evening when he came with a bullock cart to carry the rice to his village Similia, he was informed by his brother (appellant) about the seizure. D.W.2, the accountant of Hindustan Traders Malgodown, Cuttack proved Exts B and C, the counter foils of two cash memos showing sale of 10 bags of rice to Prafulla Kumar Sahoo (D.W.3) and 8 bags of rice to Gopal Chandra Sahoo of Similia on 15.1.1992. He further deposed that due to non-availability of transport facility D.W.3 lifted the rice on 16.1.1992. He further deposed that due to non-availability of transport facility D.W.3 lifted the rice on 16.1.1992. D.W.1 corroborated the evidence of D.W.3 by stating that about one and half years back, he unloaded 18 bags of rice from a truck and stored the same in a room adjacent to the shop room of appellant. D.W.4, the then octroi Superintend¬ent, Dhenkanal, who produced the receipt book containing the triplicate copies of receipt nos. 91 and 92 dated 16.1.1992 proved Exts. J and J/1, which show that the same were issued in favour of D.W.3 and Gopal Chandra Sahoo in token of receipt of Rs.10/- and 8/-towards octroi tax for 10 quintals and 8 quintals of rice respectively. The trial Court discarded the defence plea, holding that the documents like Exts.B and C and J and J/1 can easily be manufactured and that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses outweighed the evidence of the defence. It is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the defence is not required to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt unlike prosecution. If the accused is able to prove a probable case in his favour, then he should be acquitted. In the present case, when the appellant could be able to prove a probable case in his favour, the trial Court ought to have acquitted him. More¬over, it is a case of the year 1992. In the meantime more than one and half decades have been elapsed. The appeal is pending before this Court since 1993. The sword of Damocles of conviction order has been hanging over the head of appellant since about one and half decades. 7. Under the above circumstances, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and order of conviction and sentence as passed by the trial Court are set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge under Section 7 of the E.C. Act read with clause 3 of the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965. Out of the seized rice, 10 quintals or the sale proceeds thereof be returned to D.W.3 and 8 quintals or the sale proceeds thereof to Gopal Chan¬dra Sahoo of Similia. Appeal allowed.