Orissa High Court
Ramesh Chandra Sahu vs State Of Orissa on 19 August, 2025
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRA No. 116 of 1999
(In the matter of an application under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure
Code)
Ramesh Chandra Sahu ....... Appellant
-Versus-
State of Orissa ....... Respondent
For the Appellant : Mr. Satyabrata Mohanty-1, Amicus Curiae
For the Respondent : Mr. Sarathi Jyoti Mohanty, ASC
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Date of Hearing: 12.08.2025 :: Date of Judgment:19.08.2025
S.S. Mishra, J. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 04.05.99 passed by the learned
Special Judge, Keonjhar in Spl. Case No.19 of 1993, whereby the
learned trial Court has convicted the accused-appellant for the offence
punishable under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act
and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for Three months and pay a fine of
Rs.500/- i.d. to undergo further R.I. of one month more.
Prosecution and Conviction
2. The prosecution case is that on receiving information that the
accused, Ramesh Chandra Sahu, was dealing in kerosene without
authority at Laxminarayan Bazar, Ghasipura, the Vigilance Inspector of
Balasore Division, along with the Sub-Collector and A.C.S.O. of
Anandapur, conducted a raid in his grocery shop on 15.01.1993 at about
7.00 P.M. During the search, 16 litres of kerosene oil were found stored,
for which the accused could not produce any valid authority. The
kerosene was seized in the presence of the accused and witnesses, and a
copy of the seizure list was given to him after obtaining his signature
(Ext. 4). The accused was arrested and released on bail on the same day.
Later, under the orders of the Collector, Keonjhar, the seized kerosene
was sold and the sale proceeds were deposited in the Treasury. After
investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused under Section
7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act. The plea of the accused is
one of denial. He has stated that he had no such shop as claimed by the
prosecution and that his signature on the seizure list was taken on a blank
paper at his house.
3. In order to prove the charge the Prosecution had examined 4
witnesses out of them P.W.1 was the then Asst. Civil Supply Officer,
P.W.2 was the then Supply Inspector, one of the officer who
accompanied P.W.4 the Investigating officer being directed by the Sub-
Collector, Anandpur and P.W.3 was the Peon attached to the office of
the Sub-Collector.
4. Relying mainly upon the testimonies of the official witnesses and
in the absence of any such seizure witness the trial court convicted the
accused appellant U/s. Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities
Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 3 months and pay a fine of
Rs.500/- i.d to further undergo R.I. for 1 month.
5. Aggrieved by the above judgement of conviction and order of
sentence, the appellant has assailed the same in the present appeal.
6. Heard Mr Satyabrata Mohanty-1, learned Amicus Curiae for the
Appellant and Mr. Sarathi Jyoti Mohanty, Learned Additional Standing
Counsel for the State.
Submission by the Counsel for the appellant
7. Mr. Mohanty, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant, contended
that there was no independent witness to the alleged seizure of kerosene.
He submitted that the case rests only on the testimony of official
witnesses and no independent witness has been examined by the
Prosecution. During the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer, it
revealed that he made inconsistent statements regarding the presence of
independent witnesses. The relevant portion is reproduced below:
"5. I have not seized any documents regarding ownership of the
shop of the accused. I have not cited any independent witnesses.
I have not called any independent witnesses to witness the search
and seizure
(Volunters: In vigilance case as per practice we requisitioned
the services of only Govt. Officer to assist us in search and
seizure.)
I have noted in the case diary that I called the independent
witnesses gathered there but they did not cooperate and ran
away without disclosing identity. "
It is submitted that on one hand the Investigating Officer stated
that in vigilance cases it is the practice to take the assistance of
Government Officers only and no independent witnesses are necessary to
be there, in the same breathe he claimed that independent witnesses
present at the spot did not cooperate. Learned counsel further argued that
the search team did not collect any documents to establish the ownership
of the shop, which also finds support from the depositions of other
official witnesses.
8. It is further submitted that P.W.2, the then Inspector of Supplies,
deposed that no formal warrant was obtained for conducting a raid in the
premises after sunset, which casts further doubt on the prosecution case.
The relevant portion of his evidence reads as follows:
"We had no warrant with us for raiding the shop of
the accused after sunset."
Additionally, it is submitted that no reliable proof has been
adduced regarding the actual quantity of kerosene allegedly seized, nor
has any evidence been placed to establish that the shop in question
belonged to the accused. In such circumstances, learned counsel for the
appellant has prayed for an order of acquittal in favour of the appellant.
Observations and Reasoning
9. On careful consideration of the evidence on record, certain
infirmities in the prosecution case become apparent. The alleged seizure
of kerosene was not supported by the testimony of any independent
witness. Though the Investigating Officer in one part of his deposition
stated that, as a matter of practice in vigilance cases, only Government
officials are requisitioned to assist in search and seizure, in another part
of his evidence he claimed that independent witnesses present at the spot
did not cooperate and left the place without disclosing their identity.
Such contradictory statements cast serious doubt on the credibility of the
seizure. Further, the prosecution has failed to produce any document to
show that the shop where the raid was conducted actually belonged to
the accused. This omission assumes significance in view of the specific
plea of the accused that he had no such shop at the relevant place.
10. Moreover, P.W.2, the then Inspector of Supplies, has clearly
admitted that no warrant was obtained for conducting the raid after
sunset. The raid admittedly took place at about 7.00 P.M., and the
absence of any formal warrant renders the search irregular, thereby
affecting the legality of the seizure. It is also evident that no conclusive
proof has been brought on record regarding the exact quantity of
kerosene allegedly seized from the shop. In the absence of such essential
proof, the prosecution version remains doubtful and cannot be relied
upon for sustaining a conviction under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential
Commodities Act.
11. In a criminal trial, the burden squarely lies on the prosecution to
prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The deficiencies noted above,
taken cumulatively, go to the root of the matter and create reasonable
doubt as to whether the accused was in possession of kerosene without
authority as alleged. Benefit of such doubt must necessarily accrue to the
benefit of the accused.
Conclusion
12. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained.
Accordingly, the judgment and order of conviction passed by the
learned Special Judge, Keonjhar, in Spl. Case No. 19 of 1993 are hereby
set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge under Section
7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act.
13. The Criminal Appeal is allowed, bail bonds if any, stand
discharged.
14. This Court acknowledges the effective and meaningful assistance
rendered by Mr. Satyabrata Mohanty-1, learned Amicus Curiae in this
case. Learned Amicus Curiae is entitled to an honorarium of Rs.7,500/-
(Rupees seven thousand five hundred) to be paid as a token of
appreciation.
(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Dated the 19th August, 2025/Swarna
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa
