Orissa High Court
Ratnakar Acharya vs State Of Odisha on 13 April, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRA No.59 of 1994
Ratnakar Acharya ... Appellant
Mr. B.K. Mishra, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha ... Respondent
Mr. P.K. Pattnaik, AGA
CORAM:
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
JUDGMENT
13.04.2023
G. Satapathy, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment
of conviction and order of sentence passed on
02.02.1994 by learned Special Judge, Koraput,
Jeypore at Koraput in T.R. Case No.77 of 1991
convicting the appellant for offence U/Ss.7(1)(a)(ii) of
Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (in short the E.C.
Act) for contravention of Clause-3 of the Orissa
Declaration of Stock and Price of Essential
Commodities Order, 1973 and releasing him U/S.360
of Cr.P.C. on his furnishing a bond of Rs.3,000/-
(Rupees Three Thousand) with two sureties each for
the like amount for a period of three years to
maintain peace and be of good behaviour and to
receive sentence as and when called upon.
2. It is clarified here that the sentence of the
appellant in the form of releasing him U/S. 360 of
Cr.P.C. has never been stayed by this Court and
there appears that such sentence having already
been worked out due to lapse of time, there requires
no interference in the order of sentence. This Court,
therefore, concentrates itself to the legality of the
question of conviction of the appellant.
3. The prosecution case as appearing from the
impugned judgment is that on 06.03.1991, the
Marketing Inspector (P.W.1), Boipariguda along with
his staff, when checked the shop-cum-godown
premises of the appellant, found 110 bags of paddy
inside the go down premises without any authority
along with 12Kgs of Niger oil in a tin and 36 numbers
of torch cells, but the appellant had not displayed the
stock and price in the declaration board kept in that
shop and, thereby, the appellant was alleged to have
contravened the above mentioned order. Accordingly,
the Marketing Officer filed the prosecution report
against the appellant, who faced the trial and was
found convicted by the learned trial Court for the
offences indicated supra.
4. In the course of hearing of this appeal, Mr.
B.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant submits
that although the appellant was found convicted for
the offence, but the same appears to be contrary to
the law, in view of the fact that the learned trial Court
while convicting the appellant, had relied upon his
confession as well as the evidence of official
witnesses, but there was no corroboration from
independent source and, thereby, the conviction of
the appellant is found to be unsustainable in the eye
of law. On the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel
for the appellant prays to allow the appeal.
5. On the other hand, Mr. P.K. Pattnaik,
learned AGA, however, submits that there is no rule
of law that the evidence of official witnesses cannot
be relied upon to convict a person and when there is
ample evidence against the appellant not only in the
form of evidence of official witnesses, but in the form
of documentary evidence, the conviction of the
appellant, therefore, cannot be interfered with.
6. After having heard the rival submissions,
this Court now proceeds to examine the evidence of
witnesses on record. It appears that P.W.1-the
Marketing Inspector had reiterated the allegation
against the appellant in his evidence and he had
accordingly stated that around 110Kgs of paddy was
found in the go down of the appellant along with
12Kgs of Niger oil and 36 numbers of batteries, which
remains un-assailed in the cross examination.
Similarly, P.W.2-the Addl. Block Development Officer
(ABDO) has also supported the evidence of P.W.1
with regard to recovery and seizure of aforesaid
quantity of paddy bags and Niger oil.
7. On the other hand, the defence had
examined one witness, who had stated that he has
given his land to his another younger brother and
after death of such brother, he had asked the
appellant to cultivate his lands. It is his further
evidence that during the investigation, he filed an
application before the I.O. claiming the seized stock,
but such evidence of defence appears to be
insignificant as the said witness had not been able to
clarify as to what amount of the paddy stock he had
claimed and he had also admitted in cross
examination that he has given the land to the
appellant on Bhag basis orally and he had four sons
and all of them are leaving and his brothers were
already separated since long.
8. On cumulative analysis and appraisal of
evidence on record vis-à-vis the impugned judgment,
this Court does not find any error apparent in the
findings of the learned trial Court so as to disturb the
conviction of the appellant for the offence alleged.
9. In the result, the appeal sans merit, stands
dismissed, but in the circumstance, there is no order
as to costs.
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 13th of April, 2023/Subhasmita
