Orissa High Court

Trinath Pradhan vs State Of Orissa on 14 October, 2025

         THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                         CRA No.197 of 1994

(In the matter of an application under Section 374(2) of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973)


Trinath Pradhan                       .......                 Appellant

                                 -Versus-

State of Orissa                       .......                Respondent

For the Appellant : Ms. Ayushi Meheta, Advocate

For the Respondent : Mr. Raj Bhusan Dash, ASC

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA

Date of Hearing: 14.10.2025 :: Date of Judgment: 14.10.2025

S.S. Mishra, J. The present criminal appeal is directed against the

judgment and order dated 13.05.1994 passed by the learned District

Judge-cum-Judge Special Court, Phulbani in 2(c)C.C. No.6 of 1991,

whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section

7(1)(a)(i) of the Essential Commodities Act for violation of Order 13 of the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order and Order 14 of the Orissa

Wheat and Wheat Products Control Order, 1988. On the said count, he

was sentenced to undergo R.I. for three months and to pay a fine of

Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo further R.I. for a term of two months.

2. Heard Ms. Ayushi Meheta, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant and Mr. Raj Bhusan Dash, learned Additional Standing

Counsel for the State.

3. The prosecution case in short is that the accused-Trinath Pradhan,

was appointed as the Storage Agent for rice, wheat, and sugar for the

Chakapad Block for the year 1990-91 under the Orissa State Civil

Supplies Corporation Ltd., Phulbani, and was functioning in that

capacity from 20.09.1990. He was operating through two storage depots

located at Sankarakhol and Chakapad. In early 1991, complaints were

received against the accused regarding mismanagement and non-

attendance at the godowns, for which, the District Manager of the Orissa

State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. directed the accused to ensure that

retailers were able to lift their allotted stocks. However, despite this

direction, the situation did not improve. Therefore, on 09.02.1991, the

A.C.S.O headquarters, along with the Marketing Inspector of Chakapad

Block, visited the accused and both godowns. During their visit, the

accused stated that the keys to the godowns were with one Prasanna

Kumar Patnaik. Subsequently, on 13.02.1991 and 14.02.1991, a physical

verification of the stocks at the Chakapad and Sankarakhol depots was

conducted in the presence of an Executive Magistrate The verification

revealed shortages in various commodities, specifically 467.02 kgs. of

rice (under the I.T.D.P. scheme), 159.21 kgs of wheat, and 25 quintals of

sugar. It is further alleged that the accused failed to submit the arrival

reports for rice and wheat received at the block during the period from

16.01.1991 to 24.01.1991, either to the Marketing Inspector, Chakapad,

or to the Block Development Officer, Chakapad Block. Moreover, the

accused did not account for 14.05 quintals of rice received by him on

24.01.1991 in the relevant stock registers. Charges were framed against

the appellant and on the stance of denial, the appellant was put to trial.

4. The prosecution in order to prove its case, examined as many as

six witnesses. Out of whom, P.W.1 was the Vigilance Inspector, P.W.2

was the then Assistant Civil Supplies Officer, Phulbani, P.W.3 was the

Establishment Officer of Phulbani Collectorate, P.W.4 was the then Civil

Supplies Officer-cum-District Manager of O.S.C.S.C.., Ltd., Phublani.

P.W.5 is Prasanna Kumar Patnaik, to whom, the accused alleged to be

the power of attorney holder whereas P.W.6 was the Marketing Officer

of Chakapad Block.

5. The learned trial Court after analyzing the evidence returned the

following findings:-

"8. The accused has taken the plea that Prasanna Kumar Patinaik was the power of attorney holder on behalf of the accused. The same has also been suggested to P.W.1 P.W.6 is no one else than Prasanna Kumar, Patnail. He has denied to be the power of attorney holder of the accused. The accused has not proved the deed in which power of attorney was given to Prasanna Kumar Patnaik (P.w.6 In the absence of the power of attorney this court is not inclined to believe that P.w.6 was the power of attorney holder. Assuming that P.W.6 was the power of attorney holder the principal is liable for all the acts and omissions of the attorney. The liability of the principal cannot be absolved for the act of omissions made by the Power of attorney. The plea of the accused that P.W.6 is the power of attorney has failed but neverthless, the statutory liability of the accused will in no way absolve the accused in maintenance of daily accounts of rice. Thus the accused has violated the order 13

of the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control order and is liable.

10. It is pertinent to quote order 14 of the Orissa Wheat and wheat products control order, 1988 which reads.

14. Maintenance of accounts: The retailor or as the case may be a wholesaler shall maintain a Register of daily accounts of wheat and wheat products showing therein correctly

a) the opening stock on each day.

b) the quantities received on each day showing the place from where and source from which received.

c) the quantities delivered or otherwise removed on each day showing the place of destination and

d) the closing stock on each day."

6. By appreciating and analyzing the evidence brought on record by

the prosecution and taking into consideration the defence plea eventually

the learned trial Court recorded the guilt of the appellant by concluding

as under:-

"14. In the net the accused has not violated the order 6 and 12 of the Orissa Rice and Paddy control order, order 9 of the Orissa Sugar Dealers Licensing order and order 15 of the Orissa wheat and wheat products control order and is acquitted therefrom. But the accused has violated order 13 of the Orissa Rice and Paddy

control order and order 14 of the Orissa wheat and wheat products control order. Both the control orders have been framed by the Govt.in the exercise of the powers conferred under sec.3 of the Essential commodities Act, 1955, the violation of which has been made penal U/s.7(1)(a)(i) of the Essential Commodities Act, the accused is convicted thereunder. Thus it can be said that prosecution has been able to bring home the offence U/s.7(1)(a)(i) of the Essential Commodities Act for the violation of order 13 of the Orissa Rice and paddy control order and order 14 of the Orissa Wheat and Wheat products control order."

7. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment of conviction and

order of sentence passed by the learned District Judge-cum-Judge

Special Court, Phulbani, the present Appeal has been preferred by the

appellant.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant at the outset submitted that she

would press the appeal only limited to the question of sentence.

9. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 01.07.2025, the

following order was passed:-

"1.This appeal is pending since 1994. The status of the appellant, present wellbeing and whereabouts are not known. Therefore, the

Superintendent of Police, Phulbani is directed to ascertain the whereabouts and wellbeing of the appellant within a week and submit a report in that regard, by the next date of hearing without fail.

2. Learned counsel for the State is also directed to obtain instruction regarding the period already undergone by the appellant, by the next date of hearing. It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given on the aforementioned ground of obtaining instruction.

3. List this matter next week."

10. Pursuant to the aforementioned order, the I.I.C., Phulbani

Town P.S. has placed a report dated 09.07.2025, which reads as under:-

"With reference to the case and subject cited above, I hereby submit that the appellant Trinath Pradhan S/o-Ld.-Madan Pradhan of Vill- Madikunda, PS-Phulbani Town, Dist-Kandhamal is alive and presently staying at Vill-Bapalmendi (L) under Tikabali PS jurisdiction of Kandhamal District.

However, the appellant Trinath Pradhan could not be specific and sure the period he has undergone and stated before the undersigned that in the year 1991, he has undergone for a period of about 90 days."

From the report, it is apparent that the appellant has already

undergone sentence for the period about ninety days.

11. In view of the aforementioned, learned counsel for the appellant

submits that the total period of the sentence awarded against the

appellant has already been served out by the appellant. Hence, nothing

survives in the present appeal. She does not want to assail the conviction,

rather wants to put the case to quietus.

12. Regard being had to the aforementioned, while maintaining the

conviction as the appellant has already served out the entire sentence

awarded by the trial Court, however, in so far as the fine of Rs.500/- is

concerned, the same is waived. Therefore, the sentence is modified to

that of the period the appellant already undergone. The conviction on the