RAJENDRA PRASAD YADAV Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.08.1992 passed by the learned Special Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada in Vig. G.R. Case No.25 of 1989. The learned Special Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada vide the impugned judgment and order, held the appellant (hereinafter referred to as "the accused") guilty of the charge under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of six months for violation of Clause-3 of the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "the Order"), an order promulgated under Section 3 of the Act, as allegedly he was found to be in possession of 126 quintals and 10kgs of rice without any license, as such, a dealer without license.

(2.) Prosecution placed a case before the trial court that on 10.05.1989, while the Vigilance Inspector, Rairangpur along with A.C.S.O., Rairangpur were performing patrolling duty in the border area to check illegal movement of essential commodities, at about 8 PM, found a Truck bearing no. ORM 6036 coming from Bahalda side towards Bihar and chased the said Truck which suddenly stopped as one of its tire was punctured. On verification, they found that the Truck was having 130 bags of rice, but the occupants of the said Truck including the driver except the helper fled away from spot. Subsequently, it was found that the said Truck was belonging to the accused and on being asked, the helper, who was there, disclosed that one Md. Kayum was driving the Truck, but could not produce any license or permit in support of transportation of the rice stock from Orissa to Bihar. As no license was there for transportation of the aforesaid articles, seizure of the aforesaid Truck and rice were made by the Vigilance Police, necessary investigation was taken up and on completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused and the driver of the truck.

(3.) The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge though admitted to be the owner of the truck. The prosecution, as such, examined as many as nine witnesses and also exhibited certain documents in order to establish the charge. But in his defence, the accused did not adduce any evidence. The trial court on conclusion of the trial, taking into consideration the evidence of the seizure of the Truck along with the rice, held that rice seized was found in the Truck of the accused and he was in possession of the same, as such, a dealer without license and violated Clause- 3 of the Order punishable under Section 7 of the Act and returned the judgment of conviction and order of sentence assailed herein this appeal, but acquitted the co-accused driver.