DAITARI SAHOO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment and order dated 15.11.1993 passed by the Special Judge, Dhenkanal in Special case No. 2 of 1992 convicting the accused -appellant under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (in short E.C. Act) for contravention of Clause 3 of the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965 and sentencing him there under to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,0007 -i.d. to undergo R.I. for one month more.

(2.) ACCUSED is the proprietor of a grocery shop after the name 'Maa Bhabani Store' located at Mahavir Bazar, Dhenkanal. On 16.1.1992 at about 4 P.M. Sambalpur Vigilance Sales Tax staff with the assistance of the staff of Vigilance squad, Dhenkanal, raided the said grocery shop. On inspection the accused was found in possession of 4.5 quintals of raw (Arua) rice and 22 quintals of boiled (Usuna) rice total 26.5 quintals in his shop premises without being backed by any authority for the same. As he violated Clause 3 of Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965 read with Section 3 of E.C. Act, the Inspector of Vigilance squad Dhenkanal seized the said rice and prepared seizure list in respect thereof. Thereafter, he submitted a report to the Superintendent of Police Vigilance, Sambalpur, on whose direction the case was registered. The Superintendent of Police Vigilance, Sambalpur also directed the Inspector Vigilance Squad, Dhenkanal to investigate into the case, accordingly he investigated into it and after completion of investigation, finding a prima facie case, submitted charge sheet against the accused. The plea of the accused is one of denial. According to him he had been to Cuttack on the date of raid and returned back to his shop at 5 p.m. to see the raiding party making the seizure. It is his specific plea that out of the seized rice, 8.5 quintals belonged to him and the remaining rice to his brother Gopal and Prafulla Kumar Sahoo (D.W.3), who had kept the same on the back side of his shop room, in his absence for being transported to their village in Similia. It is his further plea that D.W.3 had purchased the said 18 quintals of rice from Hindustan Traders Malgodown, Cuttack and that he was not aware of the same at the time of raid.

(3.) THERE is no dispute that on 16.1.1992 the business premises of the appellant was raided by the Vigilance Sales Tax staff, Sambalpur and the Vigilance squad of Dhenkanal and recovered 26.5. quintals of rice. There is also no dispute that the appellant was not licenced dealing in rice during [he period of raid. So, the only question to be determined is, whether the trial Court was justified in discarding the defence plea.