Orissa High Court
Nabaghana Panigrahi vs State Of Orissa on 1 July, 2024
Author: D.Dash
Bench: D.Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRA No.54 of 1992
In the matter of an Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and from the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 22nd January, 1992 passed by the
learned Special Judge-cum-Sessions Judge, Balangir in II(C) CC
No.11 of 1990/T.R. No.17 of 1990.
----
Nabaghana Panigrahi .... Appellant
-versus-
State of Orissa .... Respondent
Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode):
For Appellant - M/s.N.C. Pati, R.N. Dash &
A.K. Nanda, (Advocates)
For Respondent - Mr.P.K. Mohanty,
Additional Standing Counsel
CORAM
MR. JUSTICE D.DASH
Date of Hearing : 20.06.2024 : Date of Judgment : 01.07.2024
D.Dash,J. The Appellant, by filing this Appeal, has assailed the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22nd January,
1992 passed by the learned Special Judge-cum-Sessions Judge,
Balangir in II(C)C.C. No.11 of 1990/T.R. No.17 of 1990.
The Appellant having faced the trail for commission of
offence under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955
(hereinafter referred to as 'the E.C.Act') for violation of Clause-6-
A, 7 and 9 of the Orissa Sugar Dealers' Licensing Order, 1963
(hereinafter referred to as 'Licensing Order') read with condition
No.3(1) (ii) and 5 of the License has been held guilty for the said
offence under section 7 of the E.C. Act and accordingly, he has
been sentenced rigorous imprisonment for three months and pay
fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
one month.
2. Prosecution case is that on the day when P.W.1 inspected
the shop of the accused with P.W.2 and P.W.3, on verification it
was found that the accused had not displayed the Price Board as
required under the provision of the Control Order and the
conditions of the license and he was having shortage 66.5 kgs of
sugar as the stock at hand. He thus faced the trial being charged
for commission of offence under section 7 of the E.C. Act.
3. The Trial Court holding the summary trial following the
procedures prescribed for trial of the summons cases, upon
examination of the evidence on record has found the prosecution
to have established the allegations against the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused has been held guilty
for commission of offence under section 7 of the E.C. Act and
sentenced as afore-stated.
4. Learned counsel for the Appellant at the outset submitted
that the trial is vitiated in view of the non-compliance of the
provision contained in section 251 read with section 261 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In support of his submission,
he has invited the attention of the Court to the order dated
06.03.1991 passed by the Trial Court. He submitted that non-
compliance of the aforesaid mandatory provision of law would
be crystal clear when the order of the Trial Court is read and,
therefore, when the prejudice to the accused is writ at large, the
accused is entitled to be acquitted as the entire trial stands
vitiated.
5. Learned counsel for the State refuting he above submission
submitted that the relevant order dated 06.03.1991 would reveal
that there has been substantial compliance of the said provisions
of law and the matter should not be viewed from such a technical
angle.
6. Keeping in view the submissions made, I have carefully
read the order dated 06.03.1991 which is placed by the learned
counsel for the Appellant in support of his submission as regards
non-compliance of the provision contained in section 251 read
with section 261 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
7. The Special Court in the case at hand while holding the
summary trial was ordained under the law to follow the
procedures prescribed for trial of the summon cases. Section 251
of the Code mandates that in a summon-case when the accused
appears or is brought before the Magistrate, the particulars of the
offence of which he is accused of shall be stated to him and then
he shall be asked as to whether he pleads guilty or has any
defence to make, when it shall not be necessary to frame a charge.
Keeping the provision in the backdrop, the relevant order dated
06.03.1991 being gone through, it is found that the learned Trial
Court while proceeding to comply the provision contained in
section 251 of the Code has indicated as follows:-
"the particulars as of the offence is explained to
the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and
claims for trial"
The order does not reflect as to what are the offences of
whose particulars, the accused was explained of and that too
even without indicating/stating the statutory provision and the
allegations levelled against the accused. This order, according to
my view, is not the one as required for compliance of the
provision contained in section 251 of the Code.
8. In that view of the matter, the prejudice to the accused
being writ large as he has been misled in the trial, the trial stands
vitiated and, therefore, the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence impugned in this Appeal cannot be sustained.
9. In the result, the Appeal is allowed. The impugned
judgment of conviction and order sentence dated 22.01.1992
passed by the learned Special Judge-cum-Sessions Judge,
Balangir are hereby set aside.
Since the Appellant (accused), namely, Nabaghana
Panigrahi is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand discharged.
(D. Dash),
Judge.
Himansu
Signed by: HIMANSU SEKHAR DASH
