JAGANNATH MANDAL Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal U/S.374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code) by the appellant calling in question the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed on 8/4/1994 by learned Special Judge, Balasore in Special Case No.23 of 1992 convicting him for offence under Sec. 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (in short the E.C. Act) and sentencing him to the punishment of Rigorous Imprisonment(RI) for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000.00 (Rupees One Thousand) in default whereof, to undergo R.I. for a further period of one month.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is, on a tip off, the Officers of Vigilance Department, Cuttack inspected the premises of M/s. Sri Jagannath Fertiliser and Cycle Shop located at Remuna belonging to the appellant on 09. 11.1989 in between 5.30 P.M. to 6.30 P.M., but on demand, the appellant failed to produce any certificate of registration/dealer's license authorizing him to carry on business of fertilizers. Finding the certificate or license to have not displayed in a prominent and conspicuous place of his shop and also finding the appellant to have not maintained the stock books or records relating to business in fertilizers, it was considered to be violation of provisions of Fertilizer (Control) Order, which is punishable U/S.7 of EC Act and, accordingly, different/various brands of fertilizers were seized and left in the zima of the appellant. On the incident, P.W.6, Mr. S.R. Singh, lodged a FIR before the Superintendent of Vigilance, Balasore Division, Cuttack, which was accordingly registered as Balasore Vigilance P.S. Case No.35 of 1989 and P.W.6 on being permitted, continued with the investigation and he, on completion of investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the appellant resulting in trial in the present case.

(3.) In the course of hearing of appeal, Mr. D. Sethy, learned counsel for the appellant submits that since the conviction has been recorded around 30 years back, he does not wish to challenge the conviction, but he, however, prays for clemency in sentence. Learned counsel for the appellant accordingly, prays to extend the benefit of P.O. Act to the appellant.