Orissa High Court
Naresh Kumar Singhania vs State Of Orissa And Another on 11 April, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRA NO.176 of 1993
(In the matter of application under Section 374(2) of
the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.).
Naresh Kumar Singhania .... Appellant
-versus-
State of Orissa and Another .... Respondents
For Appellant : Mr. Abhas Mohanty, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. P.K. Pattnaik, AGA
CORAM:
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
DATE OF JUDGMENT:11.04.2023
G. Satapathy, J.
1. This appeal U/S.374(2) of the of the Cr.P.C. is
directed against the judgment passed on 11.06.1993
by Sri B. Khadanga, learned Judge (Special Court),
Sambalpur in T.R. Case No.01 of 1988 convicting the
appellant for commission of offence U/S.7(1)(a)(i) of
Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (E.C. Act) and
sentencing him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for
3 months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five
Hundred) in default whereof to undergo Simple
Imprisonment for further period of 15 days.
2. The prosecution case in brief is on the intervening
night of 06/07.05.1987 at about 12.10 A.M. finding
the Truck bearing Registration No.OSS-4945 at
Beharamal Municipal check gate while transporting
Rice bags without any authority, the Inspector of
Supplies (Enforcement), Jharsuguda (P.W.3) detained
the Truck and, on verification, P.W.3 found the Truck
loaded with 50 bags of Rice weighing Quintals 49.
After seizure, P.W.3 released the Rice in the Zima of
Government Storage Agent, M/s. Mulchand and the
Truck with its owner and, accordingly, P.W.3
submitted a prosecution report against the convict-
cum-owner of the truck for commission of offence
U/S.7 of E.C. Act for transporting the aforesaid
quantity of Rice to Jarangloi for sale with fake
purchase vouchers in the name of fictitious persons in
statutory contravention of Clause-3 of Orissa Rice and
Paddy Control Order, 1965 punishable U/S.7 of E.C.
Act resulting in trial in the present case.
2.1. On receipt of P.R., the learned trial Court took
cognizance of offence U/S.7 of E.C. Act and the
appellant was sent up for trial in this case. The
prosecution in support of its case examined three
witnesses, so also relied upon the documents under
Exts.1 to 7 and sample Rice packet under M.O.I as
against no evidence whatsoever by the defence. After
appreciating the evidence upon hearing the parties,
the learned trial Court found the appellant guilty of
the offence U/S.7 of E.C. Act and sentenced him to
the punishment indicated supra. Hence, this appeal.
3. In the course of hearing of the appeal, Mr. Abhas
Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellant straight
away has challenged the conviction of the appellant
by inter alia submitting that the transportation of Rice
by the convict in this case would never amount to
commission of any offence in view of the fact that
transportation of paddy in a Truck does not amount
to "storage" attracting violation of Clause-3 read with
Clause-2(b) of the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control
Order, 1965 and, thereby, ultimately not attracting
the offence U/S.7 of E.C. Act against the convict in
this case. It is further submitted by him that even the
act alleged against the appellant does not amount to
commission of any offence, the conviction of the
appellant thereby is unsustainable in the eye of law
and liable to be set-aside. Learned counsel for the
appellant has accordingly prayed to allow the appeal.
4. In resisting the claim of the learned counsel for
the appellant, Mr. P.K. Pattnaik, learned AGA,
however, taking through the facts of the case, has
submitted that the act of transportation of Rice in the
Truck without any authority, amounts to commission
of offence U/S.7 of E.C. Act and, thereby, the
conviction of the appellant cannot be faulted with.
Learned AGA has accordingly, prayed to dismiss the
appeal.
5. After carefully bestowing consideration to the
rival submissions, this Court without appreciating the
evidence on record, considers it apt to examine the
legality of the act of the appellant with reference to
the scope and ambit of offence U/S.7 of E.C. Act. For
the sake of argument, let us consider the act of the
appellant which has been considered by the learned
Judge, Special Court, Sambalpur, "for facilitating
transportation of rice in his truck" to be true. In
considering the above aspect in the light of argument
of the appellant, this Court considers it expedient
refer to the decision in the case of Bijaya Kumar
Agarwala Vrs. State of Orissa; (1996) 11 OCR
(SC) 573 wherein while answering to a similar
question, "whether paddy loaded in a Truck in excess
of permissible limit while in transit can be deemed to
be 'stored' within the meaning of the word 'storage'
used in the aforesaid control order", the Apex Court
had held that by itself cannot amount to 'storing' of
goods by interpreting Clause-3 of Orissa Rice and
Paddy Control Order, 1965 and referring to the
dictionary meaning of the word 'store' from Black's
Law Dictionary, Webster's Comprehensive Dictionary,
(International Edition) and Concise Oxford Dictionary
and, accordingly, set-aside the conviction of the
appellant for offence U/S.7 of E.C. Act, on the ground
that such transportation of rice does not amount to
storage as contemplated in the Rice and Paddy
Control Order, 1965.
6. In Pratap Rudra Mishra Vrs. Susanta Kumar
Hota; MANU/OR/0174/2000 (Criminal Misc.
Case No.979 of 2000), our High Court after
referring to the decision in Bijaya Kumar Agarwala
(supra) has been pleased to held as under:
"In the present case, as per the statement of
the driver as well as the owner of the truck,
it appears that the paddy in question was
being transported from one place to another
and there is no material to indicate that the
paddy kept in the truck was being used as a
'storage' for being sold at different points.
Mere transaction does not contravene the
Control Order and therefore, no offence
Under Section 7 of the Essential
Commodities Act is made out."
7. In view of the above discussion of facts made
hereinabove and taking into consideration the law laid
down by the Apex Court in Bijaya Kumar Agarwala
(supra), the contention raised by the counsel for the
appellant deserves consideration and, thereby, the
conviction of the appellant for offence U/S.7 of E.C.
Act is found to be unsustainable in the eye of law.
8. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed on contest, but
in the circumstance, there is no order as to costs. As
a logical sequitur, the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence of the appellant passed by the
learned Judge, Special Court, Sambalpur in T.R. Case
No.01 of 1988 are hereby set aside. The appellant be
discharged of his bail bonds in this case.
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 11 th day of April, 2023/Subhasmita
