NILAMANI PRADHAN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to quash the proceeding initiated under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act against the petitioner in 2(c)c case No. 1 -A of 1990 pending in the Court of Special Judge -cum -Sessions Judge, Bolangir.

(2.) THE brief facts leading to this application are that on 2.12.1988 at village Badkarli, near Rampur Police Station in Bolangir district, a truck bearing registration No. ORS 6755 was found transporting 120 bags of paddy weighing about 90 quintals by the Inspector of Supplies of Bolangir District. The driver of the truck Rajkishore Gadnayak produced a transit permit before the Enforcement Squad showing that the paddy was being transported from Hirmunda of Sambalpur district to Nalini Rice Mill at Baijamunda of the same district. The present petitioner was the owner of the said rice mill. It is contended that the present petitioner Nilamani Pradhan, who was the owner of the paddy was a licensee under the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order and his licence was only confined to Sambalpur district. The aforesaid truck was detected along with the paddy collected in Bolangir district. On the aforesaid allegation, prosecution report was submitted against the present petitioner as well as the driver and one Surendra Pradhan, who alleged to have made confessional statement before the Enforcement Squad to the effect that he procured paddy from Bolangir District and was sending the same to Nalini Rice Mill of Sambalpur District. Basing on the aforesaid confession of the said Surendra Pradhan, the truck was detected and prosecution was launched against the petitioner, the driver of the truck and said Surendra Pradhan and cognizance was taken for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 7 of the E.C. Act in 2(c) C.C. Case No. 1 of 1999 in the Court of Special Judge, Bolangir. It is further stated by the petitioner that he could only come to know about the case when N.B.W. was issued against him and that the aforesaid prosecution was launched against him and in the meantime there is split up in the trial and N.B.W. was issued against him. It is further stated that the trial of the main case i.e. 2 (c) C.C. Case No. 1 -A of 1990 which was based on the confessional statement of Surendra Pradhan that rice was procured from Bolangir district, was ended in acquittal so far as the accused Surendra Kumar Pradhan is concerned. The judgment in the main case was pronounced on 23.4.1993. The learned Special Judge was pleased to hold that the prosecution was launched on a misconceived notion. The trial Court further held that the accused basing on whose confessional statement, prosecution was launched was neither a licensee nor the person who violated any provisions of the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order. The further finding of the trial Court is that there was no evidence to prove that paddy was purchased from Tangarkerla area. Therefore, the learned trial Court reached at the conclusion that it was hazardous to conclude that the accused was dealing paddy without licence. In the last part of the judgment, the learned trial Court held as follows :

(3.) BASING on the aforesaid finding, the prosecution so launched as against Surendra ended in acquittal. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the categorical finding of the trial Court in the case of Surendra that the prosecution failed to establish that rice was procured from Bolangir district and that the evidence came to the effect that though the truck was intercepted in Bolangir District, the rice was procured in the District of Sambalpur i.e. Hiromunda. Further, it is held that in order to reach at Baijamunda i.e. where the mill of the petitioner is situated, one has to pass through a portion of Bolangir District as that is the only route. Basing on all these facts, the learned counsel for the petitioner argues that since the entire case of the prosecution is held to be misconceived in the aforesaid judgment, so passed in respect of the co -accused, basing whose statement the prosecution was launched, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the proceeding against the petitioner and prays to quash the entire proceeding.