LAWS(ORI)-2002-9-44

SANJAYA KUMAR SAHOO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

Decided On September 11, 2002
Sanjaya Kumar Sahoo Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ORISSA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NO one appears for the petitioners when the matter is called. On perusal of the petition, impugned order and connected papers, it transpires that the petitioners have prayed for quashing the charge -sheet No. 49 dated 7.10.1996 filed under Secs. 7 and 9 of the Essential Commodities Act, registered as P.R.No. 4/98 in the Court of the learned Special Judge, Bhubaneswar. The petitioner No. 2 is the retail dealer under the Public Distribution Scheme for Chandra Sekharpur area, Bhubaneswar in the district of Khurda and carries on business in the name and style "M/s. Shakti Store" bearing shop No. A -14, Housing Board Market Complex, Chandra Sekharpur, Bhubaneswar in the district of Khurda. Petitioner No. 1 is the nephew of petitioner No. 2 and he having been authorised, was looking after and dealing with the business and was managing its affairs.

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief is that on getting information that the petitioners are doing clandestine business of the essential commodities, a surprise check was conducted in their business premises on 26.6.1996 at 9.30 A.M. by the Vigilance Squad with the assistance of one P.C.Tripathy, Marketing Inspector, C.S.O. Office, Bhubaneswar. On physical weighment of essential commodities; like sugar, wheat, kerosene oil, palmolive oil in presence of witnesses, it was found that there was shortage of some articles and excess in respect of others and the physical stock did not tally with the stock register. Physical stock verification report was prepared but the authorised dealer could not satisfactorily account for such excess and shortages of the essential commodities. It was also found that the retailer lifted Atta weighing qls. 144.90 kgs. On 23.1.1996 and had sold it in black market. The commodities were seized, seizure list was prepared and the stock was kept in zima of the retailer. The Inspector, Vigilance having found materials against both the accused persons for violation of Clauses 6 and 14 of the Orissa Wheat and Wheat Product Control Order, 1988 Clauses 3 and 6A of Orissa Sugar Dealers Licensing Order, 1963; Clause 4 of Kerosene (Fixation of Ceiling Prices) Order, 1970 and Clause 3 of Orissa Declaration of Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1973 and liable to be prosecuted under Secs. 7 and 9 of the Essential Commodities Act, filed the Prosecution Report.

(3.) THE main ground on which the petitioners have assailed this order is that in view of the fact that in the confiscation proceeding under Sec. 6 -A of the Essential Commodities Act, the Collector having found in respect of certain articles that the discrepancy is negligible and within the permissible limits and as such those articles were directed to be released and therefore it is urged that the prosecution with regard to such materials like wheat and kerosene oil, cannot proceed legally. It has also been stated that the raids conducted on 20.6.1996 were illegal and without jurisdiction and as such the FIR lodged and consequent order of cognizance, are non est in the eye of law. It appears to be the contention of the petitioners that the minor shortages were unintentional inasmuch as it was because, some of the consumers who had already made purchases, left the shop without lifting and or taking such articles.