STATE OF ORISSA Vs. MAHENDRA KUMAR SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 10.04.1990 passed by the learned Sessions Judge -cum -Special Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur in G.R. Case No.3 of 1989 (V) (T.R. No.9 of 1989) acquitting the respondents of the charge under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act for contravention of Clause 3 of the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the "Control Order"), Clauses 3, 7(3) and 8 of the Orissa Rice and Paddy Procurement (Levy) and Restriction on Sale and Movement Control Order, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the "Levy Order") and Sections 5 and 6 of the Rice Milling Industries (Regulation) Act, 1958.

(2.) SHORN of unnecessary details, the case of the prosecution is that P.W.2, the Sub -Inspector of Vigilance in the establishment of the Superintendent of Police (Vig.), Berhampur Division, visited the mill premises of M/s. Trinath Rice Mill at village Hugulapata, belonging to accused -respondents No.1. He found the mill running under the supervision of accused -respondent No.2 with stacking and storing of 295.55 quintals of paddy and 64.9 quintals of rice within the mill premises at different places. Accused -respondent No.2, on being asked to produce the registers and records of the mill for inspection, produced the registers. Exts.4 and 5, and on finding the records to have not been updated beyond 16.12.1988, P.W.2 seized the same under the seizure list, Ext.6, took weight of the available rice and paddy in presence of P.W.1, the Revenue Inspector, and thereafter seized the same under the seizure list, Ext.2 and kept the seized stock in the zima of accused -respondent No.1 on execution of zimanama, Ext.3. The said accused also produced Ext.7, the licence for running the mill, but not the authority to hold the seized stock of paddy and rice. Thereafter, P.W.3, the Inspector of Vigilance, took up investigation and after completion of the same submitted charge sheet against both the accused -respondents.

(3.) IN order to prove its case, prosecution examined three witnesses and relied on ten documents. The defence, in order to substantiate its plea though not examined any witness, proved in evidence photostat copies of certificates granted by R.I. (P.W.1) to the cultivators marked Exts.A to W. The learned Special Judge, who tried the case, by his judgment dated 10.04.1990 acquitted the respondents of all the above charges with the findings that Section 15 of the Rice Milling Industries (Regulation) Act, supports the plea of the defence and, therefore, the charge under Sections 5 and 6 of the said Act has to fail. So far as the Contravention of clause 3 of the Control Order, the trial Court observed that one becomes a dealer in case he stores, purchases or sells rice or paddy or both to the extent of more than 10 quintals a day. But, such evidence was not collected by P.W.3 before submission of charge sheet. As to contravention of different clauses of the Levy Order, the trial Court found that no evidence had been led by the prosecution in Court nor had it been mentioned in the charge -sheet to substantiate the same.