Trinath Pradhan Vs State

3. The prosecution case in short is that the accused-Trinath Pradhan, was appointed as the Storage Agent for rice, wheat, and sugar for the Chakapad Block for the year 1990–91 under the Orissa State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Phulbani, and was functioning in that capacity from 20.09.1990. He was operating through two storage depots located at Sankarakhol and Chakapad. In early 1991, complaints were received against the accused regarding mismanagement and nonattendance at the godowns, for which, the District Manager of the Orissa State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. directed the accused to ensure that retailers were able to lift their allotted stocks. However, despite this direction, the situation did not improve. Therefore, on 09.02.1991, the

¶21

Page 2 of 8

¶22

A.C.S.O headquarters, along with the Marketing Inspector of Chakapad Block, visited the accused and both godowns. During their visit, the accused stated that the keys to the godowns were with one Prasanna Kumar Patnaik. Subsequently, on 13.02.1991 and 14.02.1991, a physical verification of the stocks at the Chakapad and Sankarakhol depots was conducted in the presence of an Executive Magistrate The verification revealed shortages in various commodities, specifically 467.02 kgs. of rice (under the I.T.D.P. scheme) , 159.21 kgs of wheat, and 25 quintals of sugar. It is further alleged that the accused failed to submit the arrival reports for rice and wheat received at the block during the period from 16.01.1991 to 24.01.1991, either to the Marketing Inspector, Chakapad, or to the Block Development Officer, Chakapad Block. Moreover, the accused did not account for 14.05 quintals of rice received by him on 24.01.1991 in the relevant stock registers. Charges were framed against the appellant and on the stance of denial, the appellant was put to trial.

¶23

4. The prosecution in order to prove its case, examined as many as six witnesses. Out of whom, P.W.1 was the Vigilance Inspector, P.W.2 was the then Assistant Civil Supplies Officer, Phulbani, P.W.3 was the

¶24

Page 3 of 8

¶25

Establishment Officer of Phulbani Collectorate, P.W.4 was the then Civil Supplies Officer-cum-District Manager of O.S.C.S.C.., Ltd., Phublani. P.W.5 is Prasanna Kumar Patnaik, to whom, the accused alleged to be the power of attorney holder whereas P.W.6 was the Marketing Officer of Chakapad Block.

¶26

5. The learned trial Court after analyzing the evidence returned the following findings:-

¶27

“8. The accused has taken the plea that Prasanna Kumar Patinaik was the power of attorney holder on behalf of the accused. The same has also been suggested to P.W.1 P.W.6 is no one else than Prasanna Kumar, Patnail. He has denied to be the power of attorney holder of the accused. The accused has not proved the deed in which power of attorney was given to Prasanna Kumar Patnaik (P.w.6 In the absence of the power of attorney this court is not inclined to believe that P.w.6 was the power of attorney holder. Assuming that P.W.6 was the power of attorney holder the principal is liable for all the acts and omissions of the attorney. The liability of the principal cannot be absolved for the act of omissions made by the Power of attorney. The plea of the accused that P.W.6 is the power of attorney has failed but neverthless, the statutory liability of the accused will in no way absolve the accused in maintenance of daily accounts of rice. Thus the accused has violated the order 13

¶28

Page 4 of 8

¶29

of the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control order and is liable.

¶30

10. It is pertinent to quote order 14 of the Orissa Wheat and wheat products control order, 1988 which reads.

¶31

14. Maintenance of accounts: The retailor or as the case may be a wholesaler shall maintain a Register of daily accounts of wheat and wheat products showing therein correctly a) the opening stock on each day. b) the quantities received on each day showing the place from where and source from which received.

¶32

c) the quantities delivered or otherwise removed on each day showing the place of destination and

¶33

d) the closing stock on each day.”

¶34

6. By appreciating and analyzing the evidence brought on record by

¶35

the prosecution and taking into consideration the defence plea eventually

¶36

the learned trial Court recorded the guilt of the appellant by concluding

¶37

as under:-

¶38

“14. In the net the accused has not violated the order 6 and 12 of the Orissa Rice and Paddy control order, order 9 of the Orissa Sugar Dealers Licensing order and order 15 of the Orissa wheat and wheat products control order and is acquitted therefrom. But the accused has violated order 13 of the Orissa Rice and Paddy

¶39

Page 5 of 8

¶40

control order and order 14 of the Orissa wheat and wheat products control order. Both the control orders have been framed by the Govt.in the exercise of the powers conferred under sec.3 of the Essential commodities Act, 1955, the violation of which has been made penal U/s.7(1)(a)(i) of the Essential Commodities Act, the accused is convicted thereunder. Thus it can be said that prosecution has been able to bring home the offence U/s.7(1)(a)(i) of the Essential Commodities Act for the violation of order 13 of the Orissa Rice and paddy control order and order 14 of the Orissa Wheat and Wheat products control order.”

¶41

7. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment of conviction and

¶42

order of sentence passed by the learned District Judge-cum-Judge Special Court, Phulbani, the present Appeal has been preferred by the appellant.

¶43

8. Learned counsel for the appellant at the outset submitted that she would press the appeal only limited to the question of sentence.

¶44

9. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 01.07.2025, the following order was passed:-

¶45

“1.This appeal is pending since 1994. The status of the appellant, present wellbeing and whereabouts are not known. Therefore, the

¶46

Superintendent of Police, Phulbani is directed to ascertain the whereabouts and wellbeing of the appellant within a week and submit a report in that regard, by the next date of hearing without fail.

¶47

2. Learned counsel for the State is also directed to obtain instruction regarding the period already undergone by the appellant, by the next date of hearing. It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given on the aforementioned ground of obtaining instruction.

¶48

3. List this matter next week.”

¶49

10. Pursuant to the aforementioned order, the I.I.C., Phulbani

¶50

Town P.S. has placed a report dated 09.07.2025, which reads as under:-

¶51

“With reference to the case and subject cited above, I hereby submit that the appellant Trinath Pradhan S/o-Ld.-Madan Pradhan of VillMadikunda, PS-Phulbani Town, Dist-Kandhamal is alive and presently staying at Vill-Bapalmendi (L) under Tikabali PS jurisdiction of Kandhamal District.

¶52

However, the appellant Trinath Pradhan could not be specific and sure the period he has undergone and stated before the undersigned that in the year 1991, he has undergone for a period of about 90 days.”

¶53

From the report, it is apparent that the appellant has already

¶54

undergone sentence for the period about ninety days.

¶55

11. In view of the aforementioned, learned counsel for the appellant

¶56

submits that the total period of the sentence awarded against the appellant has already been served out by the appellant. Hence, nothing survives in the present appeal. She does not want to assail the conviction, rather wants to put the case to quietus.

¶57

12. Regard being had to the aforementioned, while maintaining the

¶58

conviction as the appellant has already served out the entire sentence awarded by the trial Court, however, in so far as the fine of Rs.500/- is concerned, the same is waived. Therefore, the sentence is modified to that of the period the appellant already undergone. The conviction on the guilt of offence under Section 7(1)(a)(i) of the Essential Commodities Act is affirmed.

¶59

13. The appeal is partly allowed.

¶60

The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Dated the 14^th October, 2025/ Swarna

¶61

Signature Not Verified

¶62

Digitally Signed Signed by: SWARNAPRAVA DASH Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 17-Oct-2025 11:07:42

¶63

Page 8 of 8

Trinath Pradhan v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Trinath Pradhan v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Trilochan Maharana Vs State of Odisha

Bhagaban Majhi Vs State of Odisha

Sibananda Rout Vs State of Odisha

Tripurari Vs State

G.Krutibasa Vs State

Bairagi Behera Vs State