Orissa High Court
Balaram Naik And Another vs State Of Orissa on 9 September, 2025
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRA No.207 of 1996
(In the matter of an application under Section 374(2) of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973)
Balaram Naik and another ....... Appellants
-Versus-
State of Orissa ....... Respondent
For the Appellants : Ms. Subhashree Sen, Amicus Curiae
For the Respondent : Mr. Raj Bhusan Dash,
Additional Standing Counsel
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Date of Hearing: 21.08.2025 :: Date of Judgment: 09.09.2025
S.S. Mishra, J. The present criminal appeal is directed against the
judgment and order dated 29.06.1996 passed by the learned Special
Court, Mayurbhanj, Baripada in G.R. Case No. 244 of 1992/T.C. No. 4
of 1993, whereby the appellants have been convicted under Sections 7
and 8 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter "the Act") for
alleged violation of the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965 and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each.
2. The present appeal is pending since 30.07.1996. When the matter
was taken up for hearing on 03.07.2025, none has appeared on behalf of
the appellant. Therefore, this Court requested Ms. Subhashree Sen,
learned counsel, who is present in Court to assist the Court as Amicus
Curiae. She has readily accepted the same and after obtaining entire
record assisted the Court very effectively. This Court records
appreciation for the meaningful assistance rendered by Ms. Sen.
3. Heard Ms. Subhashree Sen, learned Amicus Curiae, for the
appellants and Mr. Raj Bhusan Dash, learned Additional Standing
Counsel for the State.
4. The appeal was heard on 21.08.2025 and the judgment was
reserved. Ms. Sen, learned Amicus Curiae has filed written note of
submission on 04.09.2025 whereas Mr. Dash, learned Additional
Standing Counsel for the State has filed the written argument on
22.08.2025.
5. The prosecution case in brief is that in the night of 28.08.1992 at
about 11.20 P.M., while the O.I.C. of Satkosia Police Station, along with
the Additional Superintendent of Police was on patrolling duty in
connection with investigation of P.S. Case No. 24/92, they detected a
truck bearing Registration No.O.R.J.-3659 on the P.W.D. road. On
search, it was allegedly found carrying 40 bags of boiled rice weighing
about 100 K.Gs. The appellant No.2- Chintamani Sahu, was the driver of
the vehicle, and the appellant No.1-Balaram Naik, was present there and
had claimed ownership of the rice. As no licence or permit was produced
on demand, the rice along with the vehicle was seized, and an F.I.R. was
lodged by the O.I.C. himself. After investigation, charge-sheet was
submitted, and ultimately the appellants were put to trial on their stance
of denial.
6. The plea of the appellants is one of complete denial. It was
contended that the seized rice did not exclusively belong to appellant
No.1, but rather to eight villagers including D.W.1, who had entrusted
the rice to be transported from Nandipada to their village for personal
use. The defence further relied upon Ext.A and Ext. A/1 (Collector's
order and claim petition) to substantiate such plea.
7. The prosecution examined four witnesses, including the
Investigating Officer, while the defence examined one witness, namely
D.W.1, Judhistir Mohanty, who claimed ownership of 8 quintals of the
rice.
8. The learned trial Court, however, did not accept the defence
version and relying upon the statutory presumption under Clause 3(a) of
the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965 read with Section 14 of
the E.C. Act, convicted both appellants. The relevant portion of the
judgment under challenge is extracted herein below:-
"8. The evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 added by the
evidence of P.W.4 clearly shows seizure of 40
quintals of rice. All the witnesses have denied the
suggestion that 7 to 8 persons were claiming the rice
at the time of detection. Only P.W 1 has stated to have
seen Dambarudhar Mohanta, Prameswar Mohanta
and Judhistira Mohanta in the Police station in the
morning, but he paraded his ignorance about the
claiming of rice by those persons from the Police.
Only Ext. A, the order of the Collector, Mayurbhanj
shows that eight persons including accused Balaram
and D.W.1 claimed the rice on 21.11.92, which was
not accepted by the Collector, Mayurbhanj. In the
present case, both the accused persons were found to
be in possession of 40 quintals of rice loaded in a
truck, which amounts to storage as per the above
enumerated position of law. Further, the onus is
heavy on the accused persons to prove that they are
not the dealers and were not in possession of more
than ten quintals of rice or rice and paddy taken
together.
9. D.W.l has stated to be one of the owners of the rice
amounting to eight quintals out of the entire stock.
According to him, he purchased the said rice from
Nandipada market and gave the same to the accused
Balaram (only present on the date of examination of
D.W.1 and the other accused was represented) to
bring it to his village Mahuldiha along with the Hat
receipt. According to him, he gave Rs. 50/- to the
truck driver for the said transportation. In cross-
examination, the witness has clearly admitted that
neither he nor accused Balaram showed the Hat
receipt to the Police at any point of time claiming
D.W.1 to be owner of eight quintals of rice. He has
more specifically stated that he did not claim the rice
on the strength of the said Hat receipt at any point of
time. For the aforesaid version of D.W.1, the plea of
the accused persons is not only belated, but also
cannot be believed. Therefore, I hold the accused
Balaram Naik and the driver of the truck accused
Chintamani Sahu to be guilty for violating the
aforesaid control Order read with Section 3
punishable U/s.7 and 8 of the E.C.Act, Both the
accused persons shall undergo rigorous
imprisonment for six months each."
9. Having considered the submissions and carefully examined the
trial Court records, this Court finds several infirmities in the prosecution
case which go to the root of the matter. The first and foremost
inconsistency lies in the number of bags allegedly seized. It is pointed
out by Ms. Sen, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants that while
some of the prosecution witnesses have spoken of 40 bags, the other
documents indicate seizure of46 bags. Such a variation shakes the very
foundation of the case. The actual quantity seized, cannot be brushed
aside as a clerical error. When the prosecution rests its case on alleged
possession beyond the permissible limit, clarity as to the exact number
of bags and the weight of rice is essentially to be established on record.
The prosecution to begin with needs to bring home the charges through
credible evidence, then only the onus transfer to the accused to
dissociate it from the charges. In this case, the prosecution could not
prove its case beyond reasonable doubt regarding the quantity of seized
offending articles.
10. Equally significant is the manner in which the weighing was
carried out. The record reveals that the weighing was not done bag-wise
but in lump sum, and it was presumed that each bag contained exactly
100 kilograms. Such a mechanical presumption without scientific or
independent verification robs the seizure of evidentiary value and casts
a serious doubt as to whether the rice in fact exceeded the prescribed
quantity so as to attract the mischief of the Control Order.
11. Ms. Sen, learned Amicus Curiae further highlighted the timing of
the seizure, which is another aspect where the prosecution version
suffers from contradiction. The F.I.R. mentions that the truck was
intercepted at 11.20 P.M. on 28.08.1992, whereas some witnesses have
stated that the truck was brought to the police station and produced in
the morning of the next day. This inconsistency regarding the timing of
detection raises doubt about the credibility of the prosecution narrative.
12. The learned trial Court has also erred in its application of
statutory presumption. Reliance was placed on Clause 3(a) of the Orissa
Rice and Paddy Control Order without first establishing the
foundational facts of seizure and possession beyond ten quintals. The
presumption under law can only arise once such basic facts are proved
beyond doubt, which is not the case here. Moreover, Clause 7(2) of the
Act, which casts a reversal burden on the accused, has not been clearly
dealt with in the impugned judgment, which indeed weakening the
prosecution case further and lean in favour of the defence.
13. Lastly, the defence plea that the rice belonged to multiple
villagers has not been given its due consideration. The testimony of
D.W.1 and the Collector's order, though not accepting the claim, clearly
record that several persons had come forward to assert ownership. This
lends support to the defence version that the rice did not exclusively
belong to the appellant Balaram Naik, and therefore the statutory
presumption of possession and dealing without valid authentication
cannot automatically be drawn against him.
14. Taken cumulatively, these infirmities create a serious doubt about
the prosecution version and make it unsafe to sustain the conviction of
the appellants, rather the appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt
leading to their acquittal.
15. The appellants, namely Balaram Naik and Chintamani Sahu, are
acquitted of the charges under Sections 7 and 8 of the Essential
Commodities Act, 1955. The judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 29.06.1996 passed by the learned Special Court,
Mayurbhanj, Baripada in G.R. Case No. 244 of 1992/T.C. No. 4 of 1993
are hereby set aside. The bail bonds, if any, shall stand discharged.
16. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed.
17. This Court acknowledges the effective and meaningful assistance
rendered by Ms. Subhashree Sen, 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 9th September, 2025/Swarna
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa
