ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The captioned appeal assails the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.09.1992 passed by the learned Special Judge, Koraput-Jeypore in T.R. Case No.28 of 1991 under section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter called the "Act").

(2.) The factual matrix leading to the case of the prosecution is that on 28.10.1988, while the Inspector of Supplies Kotpad was patrolling on the border area, he found a truck bearing registration No.ORK-3999 standing with 100 bags of paddy at Dhanamahandi village. The Inspector of Supplies asked the driver of the truck about the stock of paddy to which the driver replied that the stock belongs to the appellant (hereinafter called the "accused") and as per the instructions of the accused, the stock has been brought from Bansuli. The accused reached the spot and claimed the stock of paddy. Since the accused was in possession of more than 10 quintals of paddy, contravening the provisions of the Act, the Inspector of Supplies seized the said stock of paddy from the possession of the accused. During enquiry, it was further found that the accused had purchased the paddy from different persons at lesser price than fixed by the Government. After due enquiry, it is alleged by prosecution that the accused had contravened Clause 3(2) and Clause 11(aa) of the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965 (hereinafter called the "Order"), punishable under section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Act. Hence, P.R. was filed against the accused.

(3.) Plea of the accused, as revealed from his statement recorded under section 313 of the Cr. P.C. and cross-examination made to P.Ws., is that the paddy in question belongs to him, which was harvested from his paddy land. He completely denied the charge levelled against him.