Orissa High Court
Naresh Kumar Singhania vs State Of Orissa And Another on 11 April, 2023
Author: G. Satapathy
Bench: G. Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRA NO.176 of 1993
(In the matter of application under Section 374(2) of
the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.).
Naresh Kumar Singhania .... Appellant
-versus-
State of Orissa and Another .... Respondents
For Appellant : Mr. Abhas Mohanty, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. P.K. Pattnaik, AGA
CORAM:
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
DATE OF JUDGMENT:11.04.2023
G. Satapathy, J.
1. This appeal U/S.374(2) of the of the Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment passed on 11.06.1993 by Sri B. Khadanga, learned Judge (Special Court), Sambalpur in T.R. Case No.01 of 1988 convicting the appellant for commission of offence U/S.7(1)(a)(i) of CRA No.176 of 1993 Page 1 of 8 Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (E.C. Act) and sentencing him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) in default whereof to undergo Simple Imprisonment for further period of 15 days.
2. The prosecution case in brief is on the intervening night of 06/07.05.1987 at about 12.10 A.M. finding the Truck bearing Registration No.OSS-4945 at Beharamal Municipal check gate while transporting Rice bags without any authority, the Inspector of Supplies (Enforcement), Jharsuguda (P.W.3) detained the Truck and, on verification, P.W.3 found the Truck loaded with 50 bags of Rice weighing Quintals 49. After seizure, P.W.3 released the Rice in the Zima of Government Storage Agent, M/s. Mulchand and the Truck with its owner and, accordingly, P.W.3 submitted a prosecution report against the convict- cum-owner of the truck for commission of offence CRA No.176 of 1993 Page 2 of 8 U/S.7 of E.C. Act for transporting the aforesaid quantity of Rice to Jarangloi for sale with fake purchase vouchers in the name of fictitious persons in statutory contravention of Clause-3 of Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965 punishable U/S.7 of E.C. Act resulting in trial in the present case. 2.1. On receipt of P.R., the learned trial Court took cognizance of offence U/S.7 of E.C. Act and the appellant was sent up for trial in this case. The prosecution in support of its case examined three witnesses, so also relied upon the documents under Exts.1 to 7 and sample Rice packet under M.O.I as against no evidence whatsoever by the defence. After appreciating the evidence upon hearing the parties, the learned trial Court found the appellant guilty of the offence U/S.7 of E.C. Act and sentenced him to the punishment indicated supra. Hence, this appeal. CRA No.176 of 1993 Page 3 of 8
3. In the course of hearing of the appeal, Mr. Abhas Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellant straight away has challenged the conviction of the appellant by inter alia submitting that the transportation of Rice by the convict in this case would never amount to commission of any offence in view of the fact that transportation of paddy in a Truck does not amount to "storage" attracting violation of Clause-3 read with Clause-2(b) of the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965 and, thereby, ultimately not attracting the offence U/S.7 of E.C. Act against the convict in this case. It is further submitted by him that even the act alleged against the appellant does not amount to commission of any offence, the conviction of the appellant thereby is unsustainable in the eye of law and liable to be set-aside. Learned counsel for the appellant has accordingly prayed to allow the appeal. CRA No.176 of 1993 Page 4 of 8
4. In resisting the claim of the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. P.K. Pattnaik, learned AGA, however, taking through the facts of the case, has submitted that the act of transportation of Rice in the Truck without any authority, amounts to commission of offence U/S.7 of E.C. Act and, thereby, the conviction of the appellant cannot be faulted with. Learned AGA has accordingly, prayed to dismiss the appeal.
5. After carefully bestowing consideration to the rival submissions, this Court without appreciating the evidence on record, considers it apt to examine the legality of the act of the appellant with reference to the scope and ambit of offence U/S.7 of E.C. Act. For the sake of argument, let us consider the act of the appellant which has been considered by the learned Judge, Special Court, Sambalpur, "for facilitating transportation of rice in his truck" to be true. In CRA No.176 of 1993 Page 5 of 8 considering the above aspect in the light of argument of the appellant, this Court considers it expedient refer to the decision in the case of Bijaya Kumar Agarwala Vrs. State of Orissa; (1996) 11 OCR (SC) 573 wherein while answering to a similar question, "whether paddy loaded in a Truck in excess of permissible limit while in transit can be deemed to be 'stored' within the meaning of the word 'storage' used in the aforesaid control order", the Apex Court had held that by itself cannot amount to 'storing' of goods by interpreting Clause-3 of Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965 and referring to the dictionary meaning of the word 'store' from Black's Law Dictionary, Webster's Comprehensive Dictionary, (International Edition) and Concise Oxford Dictionary and, accordingly, set-aside the conviction of the appellant for offence U/S.7 of E.C. Act, on the ground that such transportation of rice does not amount to CRA No.176 of 1993 Page 6 of 8 storage as contemplated in the Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965.
6. In Pratap Rudra Mishra Vrs. Susanta Kumar Hota; MANU/OR/0174/2000 (Criminal Misc. Case No.979 of 2000), our High Court after referring to the decision in Bijaya Kumar Agarwala (supra) has been pleased to held as under:
"In the present case, as per the statement of the driver as well as the owner of the truck, it appears that the paddy in question was being transported from one place to another and there is no material to indicate that the paddy kept in the truck was being used as a 'storage' for being sold at different points. Mere transaction does not contravene the Control Order and therefore, no offence Under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act is made out."
7. In view of the above discussion of facts made hereinabove and taking into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court in Bijaya Kumar Agarwala (supra), the contention raised by the counsel for the appellant deserves consideration and, thereby, the CRA No.176 of 1993 Page 7 of 8 conviction of the appellant for offence U/S.7 of E.C. Act is found to be unsustainable in the eye of law.
8. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed on contest, but in the circumstance, there is no order as to costs. As a logical sequitur, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the appellant passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Sambalpur in T.R. Case No.01 of 1988 are hereby set aside. The appellant be discharged of his bail bonds in this case.
(G. Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 11 th day of April, 2023/Subhasmita CRA No.176 of 1993 Page 8 of 8