RABINARAYAN BISWAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner has been convicted under Section 12(A) of the Essential Commodities (Amendment) Ordinance, 1964, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,0001 -, in default to undergo R.I. for six months. The seized paddy has been directed to be confiscated to the State.

(2.) ON 30 -12 -1964, the supply inspector (p.w.1) visited the shop and the house of the Petitioner in village Reamal in the district of Sambalpur, and seized 17 quintals of paddy kept in twenty -seven bags and also a loose stock of forty -five quintals. He seized them under seizure list, Ext. 1. When demanded, the accused could not produce his licence. So p.w.1 submitted precaution report against the accused for alleged violation of Section 3(2), of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (Act No. 10 of 1955) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.)

(3.) THE learned trial Court held that the Petitioner accused was a 'dealer' as defined under Clause 2 of the Orissa food grains Dealers Licensing Order, 1959 and as he found him carrying on business without a licence, he convicted and sentenced '9im as hereinbefore stated. The Petitioner challenges this conviction and sentence in the present application.