Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 118 (ORI)

Srikanta Narayan Bhanj v. Gananath Mishra

2013-04-24

B.K.NAYAK

body2013
JUDGMENT B. K. NAYAK, J : In this appeal the appellant challenges the judgment and order dated 21.11.1990 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Sambalpur in T.R.Case No. 1 of 1990 convicting the appellant under Sections 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo R.I. for three months. 2.The prosecution case in a nutshell is that the appellant was a retail dealer of essential commodities at Khandadhipa and he had been granted licence (Ext. 5) by the licensing authority. On 13.9.1989 he received seven quintals of levy sugar from the Storage Agent and while keeping four quintals (four bags) in his business premises, he was attempting to dispose of three quintals of sugar in black market when he was detected by the police. The Supply Inspector, P.W.2, reached the spot and enquired about the matter from the accused, who allegedly confessed his guilt. P.W.2 seized three bags of sugar as per seizure list, Ext. 1 and kept the same in zima of one R.S.Agrawala. It is, therefore, alleged that the accused violated clauses 7 and 9 of the Sugar Dealers Licensing Order, 1963 and Clauses 2, 4, 5, 6 and 10 of the conditions of the licence. 3.The defence plea is a complete denial of the prosecution case. 4.The prosecution examined two witnesses and the defence did not lead any evidence. P.W.1 is a member of the public, who allegedly detected the offence and P.W.2, the Supply Inspector of Rairakhol, being the complainant submitted the P.R. On assessment of evidence the Trial Court observed that it is unsafe to place reliance on the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 and Ext. 4, i.e., the statement said to have been given by the appellant admitting his guilt. However, the Court below convicted the appellant stating that the accused kept four quintals of sugar in his shop and was taking the balance three quintals to somewhere else when he was detected by the public, and therefore, he has violated the condition of licence, Ext. 5. No specific finding has been given as to which condition of the licence has been violated by the appellant. 5. No specific finding has been given as to which condition of the licence has been violated by the appellant. 5.The evidence of the independent witness, P.W.1, reveals that the occurrence took place in rainy season and that the control shop of the accused is a thatched kutcha house. This evidence is also corroborated by P.W.2. It also appears from the evidence that four bags of sugar were loaded in one rickshaw and the balance three bags in another and while four bags were unloaded in his business premises, i.e. shop, three bags were not stored there but they were being taken to somewhere else and detained by the people on the road itself. P.W.2 admits in his cross-examination that the accused disclosed before him that he took four bags of sugar to his business premises and was taking the other three bags to his residence to be subsequently taken to his shop for sale. If this evidence is believed, then the allegation that the appellant was attempting to sell three bags of sugar in black market is not correct. 6.The learned Trial Court ha held that as because three bags of sugar were not stored in the business premises of the appellant, he has violated the condition of the licence, but which condition of the licence has been violated, has not been indicated in the judgment. P.W.2, the Supply Inspector, has stated hat the appellant violated condition No. 6 of his licence. Condition No. 6 in Ext. 5 is to the following effect : "6. The licensee shall not contravene the provisions of any law relating to foodstuff for the time being in force." This condition does not indicate that the licensee is legally duty-bound to keep the entire stock in his business premises and not elsewhere. The licence in question contains thirteen numbers of conditions and none of the conditions in the licence relates to keeping or storing of the entire stock of sugar inside the business premises of the licensee and not elsewhere. Nothing has been brought on record as to under which law the storage of levy sugar at any place other than the shop is restricted. Learned Additional Government is also unable to point out as to which condition of the license relates to keeping of entire stock in the business premises of the accused. Nothing has been brought on record as to under which law the storage of levy sugar at any place other than the shop is restricted. Learned Additional Government is also unable to point out as to which condition of the license relates to keeping of entire stock in the business premises of the accused. The finding of the Trial Court about violation of condition No. 6 of the licence is unsustainable. 7.In the absence of proof of violation of any specific condition of licence and keeping in view the explanation given by the appellant in Ext. 4, as deposed to by P.W.2, I hold that there is no violation of any condition of the licence, Ext. 5. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is set aside and the accused-appellant is acquitted of the charge. The Crl. Appeal is allowed. Crl. Appeal allowed.