SHANKARLAL AGRAWALA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein calls in question the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against him in II(C) C.C. No.5 of 1990 on the file of the Special Judge-cum-Sessions Judge, Balangir. The learned trial court vide the impugned judgment and order held the appellant (hereinafter referred to as "the accused") guilty of the charge under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for a period of three months for contravention of Clause-3(ii) of the Orissa Food Grains Dealers' Licensing Order, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the "Licensing Order").

(2.) The accused allegedly being found in possession of 13.50 quintals of 'Gurji' without any licence, i.e., having stored more than 10 quintals of 'Gurji' he deemed to be a dealer within the meaning of the aforesaid Licensing Order. That being the allegation, the accused was prosecuted. To substantiate the allegation, prosecution had examined two witnesses, of whom, P.W.1 is the then Marketing Intelligence Inspector. His evidence reveals that on 06.09.1989 he had inspected the business premises of the accused in the name and style "Balaji Trading". His evidence further reveals that he found stock of 13.50 quintals of 'Gurji', but the accused could not produce any licence for doing business of 'Gurji' in such quantity. Since the accused had no dealership licence for doing business in 'Gurji', P.W.1 seized the stock under seizure list (Ext.1). This witness denies suggestion that on 18.08.1989 the accused had applied for licence, the Collector being the Licensing authority. P.W.2, a Clerk attached to the Office of P.W.1 had accompanied the P.W.1 to the business premises of the accused on 06.09.1989 where they found the accused had stored 13.50 quintals of 'Gurji' having no licence required under Licensing Order. This witness was not subjected to any cross-examination. P.Ws.1 and 2 having deposed that accused was found transacting business in 'Gurji' in his business premises on 06.09.1989 to an extent of 13.50 quintals, but could not produce any licence on demand as required under the aforesaid Licensing Order. Even there was no suggestion that the accused is not related with the questioned business premises searched on 06.09.1989 by P.W.1 nor there is even any suggestion that he was not found in possession of 'Gurji' to an extent of 13.450 quintals. This being the nature of the evidence, there is overwhelming evidence on record that on 06.09.1989 the accused was doing business in his firm "Balaji Trading" in 'Gurji' to an extent of 13.50 quintals having no licence. This is the essence of the evidence brought on record.

(3.) Assailing the conviction, the learned counsel representing the accused would contend that the accused by 18.08.1989 having applied for licence and no opportunity being afforded to him to produce that licence, the accused was highly prejudiced in his trial. To make it more explicit, the learned counsel for the accused submits that no statement of the accused under the mandatory provisions of Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") being recorded, the accused was prejudiced in his defence. Hence, he having given no opportunity to know the incriminating circumstances brought against him and to explain the same, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence are unsustainable.