RAMAVATAR Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner having been convicted for violation of the provisions of Cl.3 of the Orissa Rules, Edible Oil Seeds and Edible Oils Dealers (Licensing) Order, 1977 (for short the 'Order') and S.7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') and sentenced to three months' R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo R.I. for one month more and the same having been confirmed in appeal, has filed this revision. The petitioner stood trial along with two other accused persons, namely, Gopal Santholia and Bapdeo Santholia, who have since been acquitted.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the premises of one M/s. Harnarayan Kedarnath was raided by the Vigilance Staff on 2-4-1979 and during such raid the stock of edible oil in question was discovered from a room behind the shop premises which was not reflected in the accounts of the firm. The defence of the proprietors of the firm was that the stock belonged to the petitioner who had taken the room on rent from them and had stored the edible oil there. Such plea was accepted by the learned Magistrate for which the other two accused persons named hereto before were acquitted. But since the learned Magistrate was of the view that the purchase of oil and its stocking by the petitioner was unauthorised being in violation of the provisions of the Order, he made the petitioner liable under S.7 of the Act and being of such view convicted and sentenced him as stated earlier.

(3.) Mr. R. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has urged the sole question in assailing the conviction that on the very admitted case of the prosecution and defence adduced by the petitioner, it must be taken that he has been able to establish that he was not carrying on business as a dealer in oil and hence, the conviction was not sustainable. To appreciate the contention raised, the provisions of Cl.3 of the Order may be usefully extracted :