LAXMIKANTA PAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was charged under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act for having violated Clause 3 of the Orissa Declaration of Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1973 and Clause 3 of the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965. The Trial Magistrate came to the conclusion that the Petitioner had contravened Clause 3 of the Orissa Declaration of Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1973 as well as Clause 3 of the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965 and therefore, convicted him of the offence under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act and sentenced him thereunder to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months and to pay a fine of rupees five hundred, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days. On appeal, the learned sessions Judge came to the conclusion in disagreement with the conclusion of the Trial Magistrate that the prosecution had failed to establish that Petitioner violated Clause 3 of the Orissa Declaration of Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1973. He, however, affirmed the conclusion of the learned Trial Magistrate that the Petitioner had contravened Clause 3 of the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965 and therefore, upheld the conviction of the Petitioner and confirmed the sentence passed thereunder by the learned Magistrate. Hence the present revision.

(2.) SO far as the violation of the provisions of the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order is concerned, the prosecution case is that on the date of occurrence, 21.40 quintals of rice was seized from the premises of the Petitioner and therefore, the Petitioner must be held to be a 'dealer' but he could not produce any licence for carrying on the business in rice. The plea of the accused was that out of the rice seized, 13.80 quintals belonged to two different persons who had kept their rice there and had gone to see picture and therefore, it could not be said that those 13.80 quintals of rice was seized from the possession of the Petitioner.

(3.) I would accordingly set aside the conviction and sentence of the Petitioner and acquit him of the charge levelled against him. This Criminal Revision is accordingly allowed. The bail bonds furnished by the Petitioner stand cancelled.