MAHAMMAD HARUN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant having been convicted by the learned Special Judge, Koraput in T.R.C. case No. 47 of 1988 for offence under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for contravention of Clause 3 of the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order and having been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 months has filed this appeal.

(2.) Prosecution case in short is that on 11.12.1987 morning around 3 A.M. the Marketing Inspector while patrolling in the border area of State of Orissa and Madhya Pradesh detected 4 carts loaded with paddy, moving towards Madhya Pradesh. He then detained the carts and the persons in-charge of those carts stated that the paddy carried in those carts belonged to the present appellant and that as per his instruction they were transporting the same to Madhya Pradesh. It is also-their statement that the appellant had purchased the paddy from the Kesinga weekly market on the previous day and had engaged those four cartmen to transport the paddy bags to his village in the State of Madhya Pradesh. As the cartmen could not produce any licence/permit in this connection, the paddy bags were seized and on weighment those found to contain 15 quintals and 37 kgs. of paddy. The statement of the present appellant is said to have also been recorded by this Marketing Inspector, wherein he said to have stated to have been doing regular-business in purchase and sale of rice and paddy. In view of above, prosecution was launched against the appellant for having committed offence under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for contravention of Clause 3 of the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order 1955. The appellant has taken the plea of denial.

(3.) Learned Special Judge on analysis of the evidence and the relevant provision of law has finally found the appellant to have contravened the provision of the Control Order and therefore has found the appellant to be guilty of committing offence under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 which is under challenge before this Court.