Orissa High Court
Rama Chandra Majhi vs State Of Orissa on 28 October, 2025
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRA No. 15 of 1994
(In the matter of an application under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure
Code)
Rama Chandra Majhi ....... Appellant
-Versus-
State of Orissa ....... Respondent
For the Appellants : Mr. Biswa Kumar Mishra,
Amicus Curiae
For the Respondent : Ms. Suvalaxmi Devi, ASC
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Date of Hearing: 23.10.2025 : Date of Judgment: 28.10.2025
S.S. Mishra, J. The present Criminal Appeal is preferred by appellant
assailing the judgment and order dated 17.12.1993 passed by the learned
Special Judge, Puri in T.R. Case No. 3 of 1991 convicting the appellant
under Section 7 of the E.C. Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a
period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to
undergo R.I. for one month.
2. Heard Mr. Biswa Kumar Mishra, learned Amicus Curiae for the
appellant and Ms. Suvalaxmi Devi, learned Additional Standing Counsel
for the State.
3. The narrative of prosecution report in the present case is that on
26.05.1990, the Assistant Civil Supplies Officer of the Enforcement
Squad at Bhubaneswar with his staff and the Supply Inspector, Nimapara
were on enforcement duty. In that connection, at about 5 p.m. they
reached the market area at Khelar and that area is known as 'Khelar
Bazar'. The accused had a grocery shop in that 'Khelar Bazar'. On
verification of the articles in that shop, it was found that the accused was
in possession of 14 Qtls. of Black gram, 13 Qtls. of Sugar, 4.65 Otls. of
Mustard oil in 31 sealed tins and 3 Qtls. of refined oil in 20 sealed tins.
The accused had no license or permit to possess or carry on business
with the aforesaid essential commodities. Under such circumstance, the
aforesaid articles were weighed and seized. The articles were left in the
zimma of the accused. The accused also made a voluntary statement
stating about the checking and possession of the aforesaid articles in his
shop. It is further the case of the prosecution that by the time of
checking, the shop was open and transactions were going on. It is also
the case of the prosecution that during the time of verification and
checking the accused made a false statement that he had applied for
license, which was later on found to be untrue and correct. Accordingly,
after completion of the investigation, prosecution report for the aforesaid
offences was filed.
4. To establish the charges, the prosecution examined five witnesses.
Out of them, P.W.2 was the then A.C.S.O., P.W.3 was the Inspector of
Supplies Enforcement Squad, Bhubaneswar, P.W.4 was the Marketing
Inspector, Nimapara and P.Ws.1 and 5 were the two independent
witnesses. The accused-appellant, having taken a stance of complete
denial, claimed trial and accordingly he was put to trial.
5. After analysing the evidence on record, the learned trial court
arrived at the following conclusion:-
"15. P.Ws. 2 to 4 being the official witnesses are naturally
interested witnesses for the prosecution and at the same time,
P.Ws.2 to 4 having no ill-feeling or inimical relationship with
the accused, they had no proximate cause to set up a false
case against the accused unless there would have been
checking and verification in the alleged manner. Under such
circumstance, the evidence of P.ws.2 to 4 cannot be thrown
over-board simply because they are the official witnesses.
However, their evidence is to be scanned and assessed like
any other evidence in record to find out whether they are true
and trust worthy In this connection, reliance is placed on the
ratio propounded in Vol.73(1992) C.L.T. page-28 Subodh
Sethi and another-vrs- State."
16. On a close reading of the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4 it is
found that they have consistently stated about the fact of
search and seizure in the manner it has been narrated at the
outset of the judgment (while stating about the prosecution
case). During cross-examination, nothing substantial has been
brought out from their mouth to show or suggest that these
witnesses are speaking false-hood Thus, the evidence of
P.Ws.2 to 4 is found to be credible and relied upon. In their
evidence, P.Ws.2 to 4 have stated that at 5 p.m., the shop of
the accused was found in open condition the transaction was
going on, and on verification they found black gram in 14
gunny bags, mustard oil in 31 sealed tins and refined oils in
20 sealed tins. They made the weighment and prepared the
weighment chart Ext.1 and as the accused failed to produce
any license or permit in support of possession of such huge
quantity of essential commodities therefore, a case of
contravention of the provisions in clause-3 of the Order, 1977
and clause-3 of the order, 1963 and was found subsisting
besides violation of Clause-3 of the Orissa Declaration of
Stocks and Price of Essential Commodities Order, 1973 in as
much as, the accused has not displayed a Board showing the
Stock and price of the essential commodities. They have stated
in their evidence that for the aforesaid reason, the aforesaid
articles were seized under the seizure list Ext.2 in presence of
the accused and the witnesses and the accused took the seized
articles in the zimma and executed thé zimmanama Ext. 3.
Such oral evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4 with the aforesaid violation
of provision of law finds ample corroboration from the
admitted signatures of the witnesses and the accused in Exts.1
to 3. As has been discussed and in a preceding paragraph, the
accused has not given satisfactory explanation and has not
substantiated the plea relating to existence of signature in all
such documents. Besides that in Ext. 4, he has also admitted
about happenings in the same manner as has been stated by
P.Ws. 2 to 4 and mentioned in Exts.1 to 3. Thus, the aforesaid
analysis of the evidence in record leaves no room for doubt
that the shop of the accused was searched and the articles
seized under Ext. 2 were recovered from the possession of the
accused from his shop and that accused had no license or
permit to store or possesses the said essential commodities in
business premises and that he had not displayed the stock and
price board."
6. Although the appellant stood charged for the offence punishable
under Sections 7 and 9(1) of the E.C. Act, but the learned trial Court
relying upon the evidence of the prosecution, arrived at a conclusion that
the appellant is not guilty of offence punishable under Section 9(1) of the
E.C. Act and the appellant is only convicted under Section 7 of the E.C.
Act and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of three months and
to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo R.I. for one month.
7. Taking into consideration the facts that the incident relates back to
the year 1990 and the trial went on for about three years only to end up
on 17.12.1993 and the appeal had been pending since 1994 onwards, this
Court is not inclined to knock out the appeal on the technical ground as
mentioned above particularly for the reasons that the learned trial Court
by a deep analysis of the evidence brought on record has found the
appellant guilty of the offence, as mentioned above.
8. While analyzing the evidence on record, I find no reason to
disagree with the findings written by the learned trial court, hence, I
affirm the conviction recorded against the appellant for the offence under
Section 7 of the E.C. Act.
9. At this stage, Mr. Mishra, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant
has strenuously argued the case on merit and taken me to the evidence on
record. After arguing for some time, he submitted that keeping in view
the procrastinated judicial process undergone by the appellant in this
case and the ordeal of trial faced by the appellant, he would rather
confine his argument to the quantum of sentence. He submitted that the
incident pertains to the year 1990. The appellant has undergone the
rigors of trial for about three years. Thereafter, the appeal was preferred
in the year 1994. The appeal has been prolonging to be heard for about
31 years. The appellant who was in his early forties then is now is aged
about seventy years and therefore, sending him to custody for fulfilling
his remaining sentence at this belated stage would serve no purpose. The
learned Counsel further submitted that the appellant has no criminal
antecedents, and no other case of a similar nature or otherwise is stated
to be pending against him. Over the years, he has led a dignified life,
integrated well into society, and is presently leading a settled family life.
Incarcerating him after such a long delay, it is argued, would serve little
penological purpose and may in fact be counter-productive, casting a
needless stigma not only upon him but also upon his family members,
especially when there is no suggestion of any repeat violation or ongoing
non-compliance with regulatory norms. Therefore, in the fitness of
situation, the appellant may be extended the benefit of Probation of
Offenders Act read with Section 360 Cr.P.C. I am inclined to accede to
the prayer made by Mr. Mishra, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant
on the facts scenario of the case.
10. Regard being had to the societal position of the appellant, clean
antecedents and the fact that the incident had taken place in the year
1990, I am of the considered view that the appellant is entitled to the
benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act and Section 360 of Cr.P.C.
Additionally, the case of the appellant is also covered by ratio of the
judgment of this Court in the case of Pathani Parida & another vs.
Abhaya Kumar Jagdevmohapatra1 and Dhani @ Dhaneswar Sahu vs.
State of Orissa2.
11. In such view of the matter, the present Criminal Appeal in so far
as the conviction is concerned is turned down. But instead of sentencing
the appellant to suffer imprisonment, this Court directs the appellant to
be released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act for a
period of three months on his executing bond of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five
Thousand) within one month with one surety for the like amount to
appear and receive the sentence when called upon during such period
and in the meantime, the appellant shall keep peace and good behavior
and he shall remain under the supervision of the concerned Probation
Officer during the aforementioned period of three months.
12. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.
2012 (Supp-II) OLR 469
2007 (Supp.II) OLR 250
13. This Court records the appreciation for the effective and
meaningful assistance rendered by Mr. Biswa Kumar Mishra, learned
Amicus Curiae. He is entitled to an honorarium of Rs.7,500/- (Rupees
seven thousand five hundred) to be paid as token of appreciation.
(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Dated the 28th October, 2025/Ashok
Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA
Location: High Court of Orissa
