AKSHAYA KUMAR NAYAK Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State.

(2.) PETITIONER No. 1 is the husband of the petitioner No. 2 and the petitioner No. 2 is the Sub-Wholesaler of Kerosene in respect of Patrapur Ghat under Aul Block. On the allegation of blackmarketing of PDS Kerosene, the prosecution report was submitted by Marketing Inspector (Enforcement), kendrapara on 27. 2. 2003 under Sections 7 and 9 of Essential Commodities Act and consequently the licence of the petitioner No. 2 was cancelled by the Collector, Kendrapara. The petitioners thereafter filed a writ petition before this Court in W. P. (C) No. 3010 of 2003 and in the said writ petition this court directed the Sub-Collector, kendrapara to enquire into the matter and submit a report to this Court and subsequently, an order was passed by this Court directing the Collector, Kerdrapara to inform this Court about the action he had taken on the report of the Sub-Collector. The sub-Collector, as it appears, had examined all the retailers and they had unanimously stated before him that they had lifted the quota of Kerosene Oil from the Sub-Wholesaler for the relevant months. The Collector, Kendrapara thereafter revoked the order of suspension of the licence of the petitioner No. 2, the Sub-Wholesaler and thereafter she is continuing as such in respect of patrapur Ghat under Aul Block.

(3.) NOW learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in view of the aforesaid factual scenario the truth has come to light, and when all the retailers have stated that they had received the Kerosene Oil from the Sub-Wholesaler in respect of the relevant months for which allegation of blackmarketing was levelled, it would be an unnecessary exercise to allow the prosecution in connection with 2 (C) C. C. No. 1 of 2003 pending in the Court of learned JMFC, pattamundai as against these petitioners to continue. He further submits that the main witnesses to the allegation having denied the allegation and have supported the fact that they had lifted Kerosene Oil for public distribution from the Sub-Wholeseller, the petitioner No. 2, there cannot be contrary evidence available if the prosecution is allowed to continue and the case is allowed to proceed.