RAMKUMAR AGARWALA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant stood charged under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 ('Act' for short) for contravening Clause 3 of the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'Control Order'). Upon trial learned Special Judge. Sundargarh held him guilty of the charge and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. It is against this order of conviction and sentence that the present appeal has been filed.

(2.) IN short the prosecution case was that on 11 -6 -1983 the Inspector of Supplies, PW 1 along with either officials made a surprise check to the shop -cum -godown of the appellant and found 33 Qtls. boiled rice to have been stored. On being asked the appellant could not produce any Iicence for storage of rice more than 10 Qtls. as required under the Control Order. So the aforesaid quantity of rice was seized under seizure list Ext. 1 and then left in the custody of the 'appellant on his executing zimanama Ext. 3 and finally prosecution was launched against the appellant to stand his trial under Section 7 of the Act for his having stored more than 10 Qtls. of rice.

(3.) CHALLENGING the legality and correctness of the findings recorded by the Special Judge, counsel for the appellant would strenuously urge that prosecution could not be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the whole quantity of 33 Qtls. of rice had been stored by the appellant for sale and this initial burden having not been discharged, the presumption as contained in Sub -clause (2) of Clause 3 of the Control Order that one would be deemed to be a 'dealer' for having In his possession rice or paddy exceeding 10 Qtls. could not be attracted. Further submission of the counsel was that an accused in a criminal charge is required to substantiate his defence plea by standard of preponderance of probabilities and the appellant in the present case having led evidence proved that out of the seized rice, 23 Qtls. belonged to D Ws 1 and 2 and one Ram Laxman Singh, the learned Special Judge should not have rejected the said evidence on flimsy ground that no documentary evidence could be produced to show that those persons in fact had stored rice in appellant's godown.