STATE OF ORISSA Vs. SHEIK BASHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Respondents faced trial for contravention of Clause -3 of Odisha Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965, punishable U/s.7 of the E.C. Act in G.R. Case No.14/90 (V) i.e. T.R. No.7/90 in the Court of Special Judge, Ganjam -Gajapati, at Berhampur, and by judgment dated 15.03.1994 they have been acquitted. This appeal has been filed against said judgment of acquittal holding the respondents not guilty of the said offence.

(2.) PROSECUTION case runs as under: - On 03.08.1990, the Inspector Vigilance along with other officials of Department of Supplies, inspected a truck parked near the forest check gate at Chudialanji when it was found to be loaded with 135 bags of paddy. At the relevant point of time the driver and other person in the truck could not produce any satisfactory authority in support of such transportation of paddy bags in the truck. So those paddy bags were seized under seizure list Ext.1. Two purchase vouchers were seized from Respondent No.2 under seizure list Ext.2, which were in connection with transportation from village Arakapur to village Ramachandrapur in Andhra Pradesh. The truck used for transportation of paddy bags was also seized. This led the Inspector Vigilance (P.W.4) to lodge a written report before the Superintendent of Police, Bhubaneswar under Ext.5, upon which formal F.I.R. Ext.5/1 was drawn. Finally the charge sheet having been submitted, the trial commenced. Defence case is one of denial with a specific plea that none of the Respondents had any connection with the seized paddy and they attributed the ownership of the said paddy to one Ananda Rao, not placed in the trial.

(3.) LEARNED Additional Standing Counsel for the Vigilance submits that such finding that the possession of the seized paddy bags has not been proved in so far the Respondents are concerned is based on perverse appreciation of evidence without being alive to the settled position of law. According to him, when the seizure of paddy bags has been made from the truck and it falls under the prescribed quantity of paddy so as to be a dealer coming within the definition, the burden was on the Respondents to discharge either by leading evidence or otherwise that they were not in possession of those 135 bags of paddy and those belonged to some others. Therefore, he contends that the approach of the learned Special Judge, is by way of completely ignoring the deeming provision in Control Order as provided in Clause 3 (2). Accordingly, he submits that the finding as well as the order of the acquittal are liable to be interfered with. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondents support the finding of the Court below while further submitting that in the present case, the prosecution having failed to establish the initial burden attributing the possession of the seized bags of paddy numbering 135 to the Respondents, through evidence beyond reasonable doubt, the learned Special Judge did commit no error in law by rendering the said finding against the prosecution followed by order of acquittal as the deeming provision of Clause 3(2) of the Control Order in that event does not come into play.