PRAFULLA KUMAR PATEL Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant here in this appeal assails the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.07.1991 passed against him by the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Sundargarh in 2(c)CC No. 5 of 1990/T.R. No. 5 of 1990. The learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Sundargarh vide the impugned judgment and order, held the appellant guilty of charge under Section 7 and 9 of the Essential Commodities Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (rupees five thousand) in default to undergo a further period of imprisonment of three months on each of the count as he had violated the Clause 2 and 8 of Rice Retail Licence and Clause 6 and 8 of the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965 and Clauses 10 and 14 of the Orissa Wheat and Wheat Product Control Order, 1988.

(2.) Prosecution placed a case before the Trial Court that on 06.10.1989, the appellant who was appointed as Hat Sale Retailer for Girinkela Hat under Lephripara Block, Sundargarh had lifted 50 quintals of coarse boiled rice and 10 quintals of wheat from the Storage Agent i.e., R.C.M.S., Lephripada Depot on the strength of issue order No. 421076 dated 6.10.1989 and issue order No. 337859 dated 06.10.1989 respectively of the Supply Inspector, Lephripada Block (P.W.5). After lifting the aforesaid stock, he, instead of selling in the Girinkela Hat on 06.10.1989 and 13.10.1989, diverted the rice and wheat to black market. The matter had been reported to the BDO, Lephripada (P.W.6) by some of the villagers of Girinkela, who made enquiry and forwarded the report to the SDO, Sundargarh and in pursuance of the direction of the SDO, Sundargarh, the Mark eting Inspector Shri S.K. Hati (P.W.7) also conducted an enquiry and reported that stock were not sold in the Hat, but diverted to the black market. On receipt of the said report, the Sub-Collector, Sundargarh entrusted the Marketing Inspector (P.W.7) to launch prosecution under the Essential Commodities Act. Accordingly, the Marketing Inspector launched the prosecution alleging the offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act said to have been committed by the appellant violating of the Clause 2 and 8 of Rice Retail Licence Order and Clause 6 and 8 of the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965 and Clause 10 and 14 of the Orissa Wheat and Wheat Product Control Order, 1988.

(3.) Basing on such prosecution report which was accompanied with the evidence collected during enquiry disclosing the appellant to have violated the aforesaid control orders and commission of offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Sundargarh explained the accusation to the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty. The prosecution, as such, examined as many as nine witnesses and also exhibited certain documents in order to establish the charge. The accused-appellant to dislodge the prosecution evidence in support of the charge examined five witnesses and exhibited certain documents. But the Trial Judge in the conclusion of the trial recorded the judgment of conviction and order of sentence assailed herein this appeal.