BALARAM PANIGRAHI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal stood admitted only in respect of appellant No.3 (not an accused) Ch. Harinath Rao, who was aggrieved by the order of confiscation of property to the State passed by the judgment of the learned special Courts, Phulbani in G.R. Case No.90 of 1986 (T.R.14/86) while acquitting both the accused persons (present appellant Nos.1 anql 2).

(2.) In brief, the case of the prosecution is that the C.I., Balliguda along with his police officers O.I.C., Balliguda, A.S.I. and a constable while performing patrol duty could detect the truck bearing registration number ORG 6712 at about 1.15 A.M. on 30.3.1986 and found the same loaded with 34 bags of mustard seeds weighing 83 Kgs. each and 11 bags of black-gram weighing one quintal each. Further, 84 bags of oil cakes were also found loaded in the said truck from the house of the accused-Balaram Panigrahi (since acquitted). All those articles along with the truck were seized under Ext.3. Further, seizure of the stock register maintained by Balaram Panigrahi and BrOthers was also made under Ext. I along with 44 bags of Tila each weighing 70 kgs. and 10 bags of black-gram each weighing 95 kgs. Investigation commenced and charge-sheet was submitted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act for contravening the provisions of the Orissa Pulses Oil Seeds and Oil Licensing Order, 1977. The seeds (excepting the truck and other materials) were given in zima of Lingaraj Panigrahi and Digambar Digal on execution of zimanamas Exts.6 and 7. The prosecution examined five witnesses and D.W.1- the present appellant No.3 examined himself as the defence witness. Both the appellant Nos.1 and 2 (since acquitted) took the plea that the articles belong to Purnima Agency and were being collected on behalf of the said Purnima Agency of Berhampur and they were about to be transferred by the tuck to Berhampur. The learned Court below discussed the evidence vividly and acquitted the accused persons as the prosecution failed to prove the offence against them and they also disowned the property seized. It is only after the order of acquittal, the present appellant No.3 filed this appeal with a prayer to release the seized property,i.e. the edible materials, in his favour instead of confiscating the same to the State.

(3.) Shri H. S. Satpathy, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, argued on behalf of Shri S. D. Das and submitted that the learned Court below committed an error by confiscating the property and prayed to release the seized edible articles in favour of appellant No.3 on the basis of the accused statement of appellant Nos.1 and 2 and Ext.A. According to the learned counsel, the evidence of D.W.1 and Ext.A are sufficient showing ownership of the property of appellant No.3. On the contrary, Shri Y. S. R. Murty, the learned Additional Government Advocate, supported the judgment of the Court below and drew my attention to paragraph-9 thereof.