MADHUSUDAN MOHAPATRA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner in this revision has challenged the conviction under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act read with Clause 8 of the Orissa kerosene Control Order, 1962 (for short the 'Order') and sentence of six months R.I. and fine of Rs. 50/ - in default to R.I. for seven days also confirmed in appeal.

(2.) THE charge against the Petitioner is of his having been found with five tins containing 80 litres of kerosine on 25.9.79 by P.W. 3 Supply Inspector and a Supply Supervisor. P.Ws. 1 and 2 are the witnesses to the seizure. Both the courts below found the same against the Petitioner proved through the evidence of P.W. 3 for sustaining the conviction.

(3.) EXT . 1 is the seizure list and signatures of the Petitioner appear both in the seizure list and also on its reverse as having accepted a copy of it. Even if the seizure witnesses have not supported the prosecution case, yet there is nothing to disbelieve the evidence of P.W. 3 who is a departmental witness and nothing has been stated against him so as to discredit his worth as a witness. Ext. 1 is also proved through P.W. 3 and hence it not only proved the seizure but also provided independent corroboration to the evidence of P.W. 3 regarding the fact of seizure. The view taken by me also gets support from a decision in, AIR 1978 S.C. 1511 (Modan Singh v. State of Rajasthan) wherein their Lordships held that if the evidence of the investigating officer who recovered the material objects is convincing, the evidence as to recovery need not be rejected on the ground that seizure witnesses do not support the prosecution version. Of course, Ext. 2 is another statement purported to have been signed by the Petitioner acknowledging the fact of seizure from him. Though the learned appellate court has placed reliance on such document yet in view of the statement made by the Petitioner in his statement under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure that his signature was obtained by force and the writing in the document having not been proved, it will not be safe to rely upon the same. But, however, the Petitioner having signed in the seizure list and received a copy thereof, the contention that the same has been obtained by force has no substance there being no evidence to that effect. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this revision so far as the conviction of the Petitioner is concerned.