STATE OF ORISSA Vs. NARAYAN SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State has called in question the judgment of acquittal dated 16.05.1997 passed by the learned Special Judge, Ganjam -Gajapati in G.R. Case No. 48/96 acquitting the respondent of the offence under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for violation of the provisions of sub -section 2 of section 3 of Orissa Pulses, Edible Oil Seeds and Edible Oils Dealers' (Licensing) Order, 1977 (in short hereinafter called as "the Control Order"). The short case of the prosecution is that on 27.12.1995 during noon hour, the Inspector of Vigilance, Berhampur (P.W.5) with other members forming a squad raided the shop of the respondent situated at Pandrigadia market in Berhampur town in presence of witnesses. P.W.5 then seized 9 tins of Mustard Oil, 32 tins of Rice Bran Refined. Oil, 3 tins of Barar Vanaspati, and 3 tins of Sun Flower Refined Oil from the shop of the respondent. He prepared necessary seizure list (Ext. 1) and left those seized items in zima of one Krushna Sahu under zimanaina (Ext. 2). The seizure was made as the respondent failed to produce the license as required under the Control Order. Finally P.W.5 having submitted the charge -sheet, on completion of investigation, the respondent faced the trial.

(2.) THE case of the defence is that of complete denial. Prosecution in total has examined five witnesses. As already stated P.W.5 is the Inspector of Vigilance, Berhampur, P.Ws. 1 and 4 are the Inspector of Supplies and Inspector of Commercial Taxes respectively who had accompanied P.W.5 in raiding the shop of the respondent as members of the squad formed under the leadership of the P.W.5. The Sanitary Inspector of Legal Metrology, Berhampur who had issued a certificate (Ext. 5) after verification of weights and measures of M/s. Jagannath Store has been examined as a witness from the side of the prosecution and he is P.W.3. A Junior Clerk attached to the Civil Supplies Office has come to the dock as P.W.2. The defence has examined none.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the State submits that the trial court has not properly assessed the evidence of all these prosecution witnesses, mostly the official in proper prospective and, according to him, the evidence is overwhelming on the score that it is the respondent who was then in the shop at that time and was engaged in business activity. Therefore, he submits that the irresistible conclusion ought to have been drawn that it is the respondent who is the owner of the shop and as the respondent has failed to place the license as required under the Control Order, he ought not to have been acquitted in the case. In view of all these, he urges for interference with the order of acquittal in exercise of power of this Court in seisin of an appeal against the said order.