GOLAK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A dealer in Kerosene oil under the Kerosene Control Order at Rairakhol having the shop "Sahu Stores", the petitioner, it was alleged, had not declared the correct stock position of Kerosene oil in the price and stock declaration board required to be maintained under cl.3 of the Orissa Declaration of Stocks and Prices of essential Commodities Order, 1973 (for short, 'the Order of 1973') and had not displayed in a special board the varieties of Kerosene and their prices as required under clause 4 of the Kerosene (Fixation of Ceiling Prices) Order, 1970 (for short, 'the Order of 1970') on Dec. 28, 1979, which was detected by the Inspector of Vigilance (P. W.5) in the presence of the Inspector of Commercial Taxes, Vigilance (P.W.4) and another person (P.W.3) at 1.00 p.m. on the day. The petitioner had denied the charges.

(2.) Of the five witnesses examined for the prosecution, P.Ws.1 and 2 had not said anything about the non-maintenance of the stock board and the special board as required under the two Orders. P. W.3 had not supported the case of the prosecution and was put leading questions by it under S. 154 of the Evidence Act. Relying on the evidence of P. Ws.4 and 5, the trial court held that the provisions of both the Orders had been contravened. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the petitioner could not be held guilty for violation of Cl.3 of the Order of 1973. He, however, agreed with the conclusion of the trial court that Cl.4 of the Order of 1970 had been contravened. The order of conviction passed against the petitioner under S.7 of the Essential Commodities Act for contravention of Cl.4 of the Order of 1970 was upheld and the sentences passed against the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of fifteen days and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment thereof, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of fifteen days imposed by the trial court were maintained by the appellate court.

(3.) Mr. Sutar, appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that on the evidence on record, the order of conviction maintained by the appellate court cannot be sustained in law. Mr. Mohanty, the learned Additional Standing Counsel, has contended that the evidence did show that the petitioner had not maintained a special board as required under Cl.4 of the Order of 1970.