RAMA CHANDRA SAHU Vs. ADIKANDA PANIGRAHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Undaunted by several adverse adjudications petitioner has filed this revision against the order passed by the learned Special Judge cum-Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur in 2(c) C.C.No. 9 of 1993, holding that the prosecution was not barred by limitation and there was no force in the prayer of the petitioner to discharge him.

(2.) Background facts sans unnecessary details are as follows : Alleging violation of Clause 9 and 14 of the Orissa Rice and Paddy Procurement (Levy and Restrictions on Sale and Movement) Order, 1982 (in short, 'Movement Order') by the petitioner and three others, thereby making them punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1953 (in short, the 'Act'), prosecution report was submitted against them by Shri Adikonda Panigrahi, the then Inspector of Supplies, Ganjam (hereinafter referred to as 'informant') indicating that on verification of records discrepancy was found in stock during verification on 1-3-1992. Prosecution report was submitted on 27-2-1993. According to petitioner, it was submitted on 19-3-1993. According to the petitioner, contravention was not one under Section 7 of the Act, and if at all there was any contravention, same is relatable to one under Section 13 of the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958 (in short, 'Rice Milling Act'), and the prosecution was to be initiated under the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965. The minimum penalty is one month which may extend to one year under Section 13(2)(B) of the Rice Milling Act. The prosecution report alleging contravention under Section 7 of the Act is not sustainable in law as there is no reference to Section 3 of the said Act. Even if Section 13(2)(B) of the Rice Milling Act and Section 7 of the Act are applicable, prosecution is barred by limitation as it was filed after one year and nineteen days. Reference is made to Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, the 'Code').

(3.) Earlier the petitioner had prayed for discharge which was rejected by the learned special Judge by order dated 6-10-1994. Criminal Revision No. 640 of 1994 was filed before this Court which was not entertained and by order dated 7-11-1994 the prayer for revision was rejected. Petitioner filed Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 600 of 1995 before the Apex Court which was dismissed on 24-2-1995 with observation that the petitioner shall be given an opportunity to raise the plea of limitation at the appropriate time before the trial Court. The learned Special Judge found that though the occurrence took place on 1-3-1992, the P.R.having been submitted on 27-2-1993 was within the period of limitation.