RAM KUMAR SAHU Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant assails the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 1. 8. 1989 passed by Judge, special Court, Sambalpur in T. R. No. 4 of 1987 convicting him of the offence under section 7 (l) (a) (l) of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as "e. C. Act") and sentencing him thereunder to undergo R. I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 and in default to undergo R. I. for three months more.

(2.) SUCCINCTLY stated the prosecution case is that on 5. 5. 1986 at about 11,30 a. m. the inspector of Supplies, Jharsuguda, (PW2)along with another Supply Inspector (PW1)visited the shop premises of the accused at jharsuguda, after the name "shakti Store" and found the accused in possession of 2. 20 rims of white paper, soda ash weighing 4. 10 quintals, 4. 40 quintals of common salt and 30 kgs of potato. He had not displayed the stock position of each essential commodity and retail selling price thereof in the stock-cum-price board and thereby violated clause 3 of the Orissa declaration of Stock and (Prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1973. He was also found in possession of 64 litres of kerosene oil in 4 tins containing 16 litres each, without any valid registration certificate or permit and thereby, violated clause 7 (i) of the Orissa Kerosene Control order, 1962 read with Govt. of Orissa notificationn0. 20213 dated 3. 5. 1989. It is the further case of the prosecution that the accused was found in possession of 40 quintals of pulses for sale without any valid licence and thereby contravened Clause 3 of the Orissa Pulses and Edible Oil Dealers (Licensing) Order, 1977 and Clause 3 of the pulses, Edible Oil Seeds and Edible Oils (Storage Control) Order, 1977. Since the aforesaid, contraventions are punishable under Section 7 of the E. C. Act, PW2 seized the said stock of essential commodities and kept the same in zima of the accused under proper zimanama and after completion of enquiry submitted PR against the accused. In his statement under Section 313, Cr. P. C. the accused stated that he had not opened his shop after 30. 4. 1986 on account of his mother's illness and that the alleged essential commodities were recovered from the godowns of one Mahesh Kumar Sahu.

(3.) IN order to establish its case, prosecution examined two witnesses as against one by the defence. PW2 is the Inspector of Supplies, Jharsuguda and PW1 is another Inspector of Supplies, who are said to have inspected the shop and godowns of the accused and seized the aforesaid essential commodities. One Ram Prasad was examined on behalf of the accused to depose that the essential commodities were seized from two godowns belonging to Mahesh Kumar sahu. After assessing the evidence on record, the trial Court found the accused guilty of offence under Section 7 (l) (a) (i) of the E. C. Act and convicted and sentenced him thereunder as mentioned earlier. Being aggrieved with the said order of conviction and sentence passed against him, the accused has preferred the present appeal.