Orissa High Court
Ramesh Prasad Shukla vs State Of Odisha on 30 May, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRA No.14 of 1994
Arising out of the judgment and order dated 18.12.1993 passed by the
learned District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Kalahandi-
Nawapara at Bhawanipatna in 11 (c) CC No.5/87.
Ramesh Prasad Shukla .... Appellant
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Respondent
Advocates appeared in this case through Hybrid Mode :
For Appellant : Mr.B.S.Rayaguru, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr.M.R.Mishra, ASC
CORAM:
HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
..................................................................................
Date of Judgment: 30.05.2025
...................................................................................
Savitri Ratho, J. In this Criminal Appeal, the appellant has challenged the
judgment and order dated 18.12.1993 passed by the learned District
and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Kalahandi-Nawapara at
Bhawanipatna in 11 (c) CC No.5/87, convicting him for commission
of the offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (in
short 'E.C. Act') and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for one year and
//2//
to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default to undergo further R.I. for three
months.
PROSECUTION CASE
2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 28.08.1987 at
about 7.30 p.m., the Inspector of Supplies - Prakash Chandra Patro
alongwith Ramanath Hota went to the rice mill of the appellant
situated at Biswanathpur under Lanjigarh Police Station and found 11
bags of rice weighing 10 quintal 12 Kgs and 80 grams lying in the
mill. On being asked, the appellant replied that it belonged to a fair
price shop dealer, namely Naresh Prasad Shukla of village Kirkhola
under Lanjigarh block who lifted the said rice from Biswanathpur
Government Depot and kept it in his rice huller for transportation.
The appellant produced only one issue order dated 27.8.1987 for five
quintals of rice and the tally register from which it was found that the
retailer lifted five quintals of rice on 20.08.1987 to have been sold to
the consumers of the area and he has again lifted five quintals of rice
on 27.8.1987 for sale to the consumers. This exceeded the permissible
limit and the appellant having failed to produce any authority for
possession of the same, the P.R. was submitted by the Inspector of
//3//
Supplies which was registered as 2 (c) CC Case No.05 of 1987 for the
offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.
DEFENCE PLEA
3. The plea of the defence is complete denial.
WITNESSES
4. In order to bring home the offence against the accused, the
prosecution relied on the four prosecution witnesses. The defence
examined only one witness. P.W.1-Ramanath Hota was the Inspector
of Supplies, Sadar Bhawanipatna. P.W.2-Prakas Chandra Patra was
the Inspector of Supplies, Bhawanipatna and he is the complainant in
the case. P.W.3-Prahallad Mund was the Supervisor of Supplies.
P.W.4-Kishore Kumar Patra is the Inspector of Supplies, Lanjigarh.
P.W.1-Ramnath Hota has stated in his examination-in-chief on
28.08.1987 that he alongwith P.W.3 and others checked the rice mill
of the accused and verified the mill premises and stores and found
rice of 10 quintals 12 Kgs and 80 grams kept in 11 gunny bags. When
he demanded documents, the accused produced one issue order and
the tally register of rice and the issue order (Ext.1) granted in favour
of one Naresh Prasad Shukla by the Marketing Inspector for 05
quintals of rice on 27.08.1987. The Marketing Inspector had made
//4//
entry in the Tally Register of Naresh Prasad Shukla for 05 quintals of
rice on 20.08.1987. Naresh Prasad Sukla was a resident of
Bhawanipatna and was not present at the time of seizure. Tally
register and issue register were seized under Ext.2 and the rice given
in zima of the accused vide Ext.3. Weighment was done vide Ext.4. In
his cross-examination he has stated that 05 quintals of rice was issued
to one Narendra Prasad Shukla on 20.08.1987 as shown in the Tally
Register and another 05 quintals of rice was issued to Narendra
Prasad Shukla on 27.08.1987. Statement of account was recorded by
P.W.2. He has also admitted that he knew Narendra Prasad Shukla
who was the control dealer of rice, wheat and sugar for Khirkhola
Gram Panchayat. He has admitted that the village Khirkhola situated
at a distance of about 20 kms. from Biswanathpur village within hilly
areas and the communication from Khirkhola to Biswanatpur is on
hilly roads and only bullock carts had to carry the control
commodities and any type of goods.
P.W.2-Prakas Chandra Patra had also reiterated the version of
P.W. 1. This witness in his cross-examination has reiterated the fact
regarding lifting of rice by Naresh Prasad Shukla, i.e., 05 quintals of
rice on 20.8.1987 and another 5 quintals of rice on 27.08.1987. He
//5//
has also admitted in his cross-examination that he did not issue the
subsequent issue order for five quintals of rice to Naresh Prasad
Shukla and he asked A.K.Patra, the Marketing Inspector that after
distribution of the first issue order of five quintals of rice, 2 nd issue
order for another five quintals of rice was issued to Naresh Prasad
Shukla. P.W.2 has further admitted that he did not take any statement
to that effect from A.K.Patra and also did not take any statement from
Naresh Prasad Shula that five quintals of rice issued on 20.8.1987 was
distributed to the consumers. In his cross-examination he has admitted
that there will be difference in rice in summer season and in rainy
season. He stated that in summer season there will be about 02 kgs
less per quintal of rice, whereas in rainy season the weighment of rice
will be more about 1-2 Kgs per quintal.
P.W.3-Prahallad Mund who was working as Supervisor of
Supplies stated that 11 bags of rice was found from the rice huller
amounting to 10 quintals 12 kgs 80 grams and at that time, the
appellant was present and on being asked, he stated that the stocks
belong to Naresh Prasad Shukla who happens to be a retailer of
village Khirkhola. He has admitted in his examination-in-chief that
the appellant had lifted rice on 20.8.1987 and 27.8.1987. As it was 11
//6//
bags more than 5 quintals is found in the issue register, it was
suspected that the appellant has illegally possessed the rice after
purchasing for business purpose. In his cross-examination he has
admitted that the accused told that the seized stocks belong to
N.P.Shukla and according to the tally register, Naresh Prasad Shukla
has lifted 05 quintals on each date, i.e. on 20.8.1987 and 27.8.1987.
He has also submitted that he had not seen the rice distribution
register and that he cannot say the name of the members of the village
committee signed in the tally register and he cannot say if Murali
Harijan was the member of the village committee.
P.W.4-Kishore Kumar Patra has stated that on 28.8.1987 he
accompanied P.C.Patra, Supply Inspector to the huller of the accused
at Biswanatphur and they found 11 bags of rice in the huller and the
accused could not produce any authority for the same. In his cross-
examination he has stated that a man is permitted to hold rice up to 10
quintals. The 11 bags of rice was weighted which came to 10 quintals
12 kgs.
D.W.1-Naresh Prasad Sukla who happens to be a dealer of
essential commodities for the village Khirkhola. In his evidence he
has stated that on 20.08.1987 he lifted 5 quintals of rice from
//7//
Biswanathpur block in 5 bags. As he could not transport the same via
Bhawanipatna he kept it in the rice huller of the accused and came
back to Bhawanipatna to arrange a vehicle. Then he went to Raipur to
attend his ailing father. On 27.8.1987 he lifted 5 quintals of rice from
Biswanathpur block and kept it in the huller of the accused and came
to Bhawanipatna to arrange a vehicle. He had lifted 10 quintals of rice
on 20.8.1987 and 27.8.1987 respectively in 10 bags from
Biswanathpur block and kept it in the rice huller of the accused and
he came to Bhawanipatna to arrange a vehicle for the purpose of
transportation and later on those 10 quintals of rice were seized by the
supply staff. He had filed petition under Section 6-A of the EC Act
before the Collector, Kalahandi in respect of the rice. In cross-
examination he has stated that the dealership has been cancelled by
the Collector, Kalahandi as he could not supply rice in time.
JUDGMENT OF LEARNED TRIAL COURT
5. (i) As per P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and 4, the rice belonged to D.W.1-
Naresh Prasad Shukla.
(ii) D.W.1 has stated that the rice belonged to him and on
account of lack of conveyance, he had stored it in huller of the
accused.
//8//
(iii) According to D.W.1, he had lifted 5 + 5 quintals of rice in
10 bags but the seized rice was contained in 11 bags and
weighed 10 quintals 12 kgs. And 80 grams Weighment of rice
may decrease and not increase. Hence, it is not the rice of
D.W.1.
(iv) P.W.1 has stated that as per the tally register, 5 quintals of
rice lifted by Naresh Prasad Shukla has been sold. So, the rice
lifted by D.W.1 cannot be connected to the seized rice.
(v) The order passed by the learned ADM, Kalahandi, Misc.
Case No. 8-87 dated 02.05.1987 seems to be misleading and is
not in favour of the defence. It shows that the rice has been
sold in public auction by another authorized dealer.
SUBMISSIONS
6. I have heard Mr. B.S. Rayaguru, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. M.R. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel
for the State.
7. Mr. B.S. Rayaguru, learned counsel for the appellant has
submitted that the following points are to be determined in this
appeal.
//9//
"(i) Whether the prosecution has able to establish its case
under section 7 of the E.C. Act against the appellant beyond
any reasonable doubt?
(ii) Whether the appellant can be said to have contravened the
provision of Clause-3 of the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control
Order?
(iii) Whether the judgment passed by the learned Special
Judge, Kalahandi holding the appellant guilty under Section 7
of the E.C. Act inasmuch as convicting him there under by
sentencing him to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay fine of
Rs.3,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for
further period of three months is sustainable in the eye of
law?
(iv) What relief can be granted to the appellant?"
8. Mr. Rayaguru, learned counsel for the appellant has also
challenged the weighment of the rice as the prosecution has not
examined the weighman who had weighed the seized rice and was to
prove the exact weight of the seized rice. As per the evidence laid by
P.W.1, he has admitted that though in presence of the accused,
weighment list was prepared and P.W.1 as well as the accused had put
their signatures on the said weighment list, but no independent
witness had put their signature on the said weighment list which
creates reasonable doubt with regard to seizure as well as preparation
//10//
of weighment list. He also submitted that there is no evidence
available on record as to how the seized rice had been weighted so
also the genuineness/status of the weighing machine whether it was
functioning rightly or not. He has also submitted that the evidence of
P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are inconsistent and contradictory to each other.
He has finally submitted that the evidence of D.W.1 has not
been refuted by the prosecution and has therefore remained
unchallenged and should have been accepted. In support of his
submissions, he has relied on the following cases:
1. Samakruti Kameswar Rao v. State of Orissa : (2014) 59
OCR 82.
2. Daitari Sahoo v. State of Orissa : (2008) (I) OLR 979;
3. Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation :
(2015) 4 SCC 609;
4. Pranabandhu Pradhan @ Jabda & another v. State of
Orissa : (2018) 71 OCR-120;
5. Baleswar Prasad Gupta v. State of Orissa : (2019) 76 OCR
255;
6. Tarak Nath Keshari v. State of West Bengal in Criminal
Appeal No.1444 of 203 (arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) D
No.28476 of 2018; decided on 10.05.2023
9. Mr. M.R. Mishra, learned Addl. Standing Counsel has opposed
the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant stating that
there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and since the
//11//
conviction and sentence passed is based upon the evidence of
prosecution witnesses and on sound analysis of facts and law, the
same should not be interfered with. He has also submitted that the
evidence of D.W.1 cannot be accepted as the seized rice weighed
more than 10 quintals.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
10. The stand of the appellant all through is that the rice belongs
to one Naresh Prasad Shukla and he has produced documents to
indicate that 10 quintals of rice had been issued to Naresh Prasad
Shukla. He had also stated that Naresh Prasad Shukla had kept the
rice in his huller as he was unable to transport the same. This has also
been stated by the P.Ws, whose evidence has been discussed above.
Naresh Prasad Shukla, who has been examined as D.W.1 has also
stated that 10 quintals of rice in ten bags had been issued to him and
he had kept them in the huller of the appellant as he was unable to
transport the same for different reasons. He has also stated that his
dealership has been cancelled by the Collector as he was unable to
supply the rice in time. I find no reason to disbelieve the evidence
D.W. 1 and the stand/defence of the appellant.
//12//
11. P.W.2 has stated that there will be difference in the rice in
Summer Season and Rainy Season. In Summer Season there will be
about 2 kgs. less per quintal of rice and in rainy season, the
weighment of rice per quintal will be in 1 to 2 kgs. more. He has also
stated after being satisfied with the statement of the accused he took
his statement. If his statement is to be believed, the 12 kgs. of rice can
be due to increase in weight due to rainy season.
12. P.W.4 has stated in cross-examination that a man is permitted
to hold rice up to limit of 10 quintals. So if 10 quintals of rice in ten
bags had been issued to Naresh Prasad Shukla and belonged to him
possession of extra 12 Kgs of rice by the appellant cannot amount to
an offence.
13. In view of the above discussion, it is apparent that 10 quintals
of rice had been issued to Naresh Prasad Shukla, who had left it in the
huller of the appellant in order to arrange conveyance for its
transportation, and 10 quintals 12 kgs. of rice had been seized from
the huller. In view of positive statement of P.W.4, the Supply
Inspector of Lanjigarh that a man is permitted to hold a limit of 10
quintals and the statement of P.W that rice will increase by 1-2 kgs.
per quintal in rainy season, the 12 kgs. of rice could have been held
//13//
by the appellant without being proceeded against for violation of any
control order or any provision of the EC Act.
14. In view of this discussion above, I am satisfied that the
appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt for which his conviction under
Section 7 of the EC Act is liable for interference.
15. The judgment dated 18.12.1993 passed by the learned
Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Kalahandi-Nawapara at
Bhawanipatna in 11(c)CC No.5/87convicting the appellant for the
offence under Section 7 of the E.C Act is accordingly, set aside and
the appeal is allowed.
16. As the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds be discharged.
17. After retaining a scanned copy of the records, the trial Court
Records be sent back to the learned trial Court along with a copy of
this judgment.
......................
(Savitri Ratho)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Dated the 30th May, 2025/RKS
CRA COURT
Date: 01-Jun-2025 22:17:36
