Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 271 (ORI)

MAHABIR TRADERS v. STATE OF ORISSA

2010-04-09

B.P.RAY

body2010
JUDGMENT : B.P. Ray, J. - The Appellants here in this appeal call in question the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the learned Special Judge, Cuttack in 2(c) CC Case No. 3 of 1991. The learned Special Judge, Cuttack found the Appellants guilty of the charge u/s 7 of the Essential Commodities Act for violating Clause 13 of the Orissa Pulses, Edible Oil Seeds and Edible Oils Dealers (Licensing) Order, 1977 and sentenced each of the Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 to undergo S.I. for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default to undergo S.I. for three months each and no separate sentence has been awarded to the Appellant partnership firm as the same was represented by the Appellant Nos. 2 and 3. 2. The prosecution case against the Appellants is that on 28.5.1991 the Civil Supply Officer, Shri Noising Patra (P.W.1) raided the firm of the Appellant No. 1 and found there the Appellant Nos. 2 and 3, who are the partners of the firm without properly filling the name and address of the sub-dealers and also the license number as required under condition No. 6 of the license and Clause 3(c) of the Control Order transacting business. So also it was found that no details of the license number and address were also reflected in the cash memos issued on different dates starting from 18.5.1991 to 25.5.1991. As such the prosecution was lodged by the P.W.1, Civil Supply Officer before the learned Special Judge, Cuttack under the Essential Commodities Act for violation of the Control Order punishable Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The Appellants were prosecuted for committing offence u/s 7 of the Essential Commodities Act for violation of the aforesaid order. 3. During the course of trial, prosecution examined as many as four witnesses, out of whom, P.W.1 is the Civil Supply Officer, P. Ws. 2, 3 and 4 are the other staff attached to Civil Supply Officer, who had accompanied P.W.1 during such raid of the business premises of the Appellant No. 1. 4. The Appellants who have taken the plea of denial have not adduced any evidence in their defence. 2, 3 and 4 are the other staff attached to Civil Supply Officer, who had accompanied P.W.1 during such raid of the business premises of the Appellant No. 1. 4. The Appellants who have taken the plea of denial have not adduced any evidence in their defence. On the conclusion of the trial, the trial court while acquitting the Appellants of the alleged charge of violation of Clause 6 and Clause 3(c) of the Control Order, held them guilty of violation of Clause 13 of the Control Order and thereby committed an offence u/s 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and sentenced the Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 as stated earlier. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants submitted that though in this case return as stipulated was not filed by the Appellants as mandated in Clause 13, but the same can not be attributed to any mens rea. Hence, the conviction of the Appellants in such facts and circumstances of the case is indefensible and as such liable to be set aside. 6. In response, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate submitted that mens rea being not a sine qua non to record a conviction under the Essential Commodities Act, the impugned judgment of conviction for violation of the Control Order can not be found fault with. 7. It appears from the record that in this case the Appellants had submitted return, but the said return was submitted in the end of the month instead of fortnight interval. There is nothing on the record to show that such non-submission of return was deliberate and willful violation of the aforesaid Control Order which invites penal provision. Before recording conviction, it goes without saying that the court is required to look into the mens rea regarding the violation alleged in a case of this nature. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record no guilty mind can be attributed to the Appellants for non filing of the return as stipulated in Clause 13 of the Control Order in question, inasmuch as the same can not be said to be willful and deliberate. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence recorded by the trial court in this case are indefensible and as such liable to be set aside. 8. Hence, this Criminal Appeal stands allowed. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence recorded by the trial court in this case are indefensible and as such liable to be set aside. 8. Hence, this Criminal Appeal stands allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence as returned by the trial court are set aside and the Appellants are acquitted of the charges. Final Result : Allowed