Barada Vs State

This A ppeal is directed against the judgm e nt and order dated 07.02.1 9 98 passed by the learned 1st Addl. Se s sions JudgeCum-Special J udge, Cuttack in VIG. G.R. Case N o .16 of 1986, wherein the s ole Appellant, stood trial for the o f fence under Section 7 of t he Essential Commodities Act, 195 5 (hereinafter referred to as t he “EC Act”) for violation of Clause (3) of Orissa Declaration o f Stock and Price; Clause (12) of th e Pulses and Edible Oil and Edible Oil Dealer Licensing Orde r and Clause (10) of the W h eat and Wheat Product Control Order s . 2. The A p pellant herein, was sentenced to und e rgo rigorous imprisonment for 15 (fifteen) days and to pay a fine o f Rs.5,000/(Rupees Five Thousand only), in default to und e rgo rigorous imprisonment for further period of 01(one) month.

¶15

The f a ctual matrix of the case is that the C omplainant, who is the Ins p ector of the Vigilance Cell, Cuttack, on receiving reliable infor m ation, conducted a raid on 04.03.198 6 , along with

¶16

CRA No. 40 of 1998

¶17

Page 1 of 5

¶18

other staff, at the business premises of the Appell a nt, operating under the na m e and style of M/s. Janata Pratistha n , situated at Malgodown, C uttack. During the course of investi g ation, it was found that t h ere were discrepancies in the stock and price display. Specifically, 14 bags of wheat were found in excess of what was decl a red, and 30 tins of mustard oil (Rath o brand) were discovered in t he godown, which were not reflected on the stock and price boa r d. The stock board displayed 41 bags of wheat; however, up o n physical verification, 55 bags w ere found, indicating an e xcess of 14 bags. Additionally, whil e no mustard oil was show n in the stock register or price board, 30 tins were found stored on the premises.

¶19

Upon completion of the enquiry, the Complainant submitted the report before the S.P. Vigilance, Cen t ral Division, Cuttack, who treated the said report as FIR and en d orsed with a direction to O I C, Vigilance P.S. Cuttack to register a case under Sections 7/9 o f the E.C. Act and further directe d P.W.2, Sri. Pitabas Behe r a, the Inspector, Vigilance Cell, Cuttack to investigate in t o the matter. P.W.2, later handed ov e r the charge of the investigation to Inspector G.C. Samal.

¶20

In cou r se of the investigation, the Appellant was found in contravention of Clause 3 of the Orissa Declaration of Stock and Price Order, C lause 12 of the Pulses and Edible Oil (Edible Oil Dealers Licen s ing) Order, and Clause 10 of the Whe a t and Wheat Products Cont r ol Order, which are punishable unde r Section 7 of the Essential C ommodities Act.

¶21

CRA No. 40 of 1998

¶22

Page 2 of 5

¶23

The c a se of the defence is one of comple t e denial and false implication and took the stand that he had no k nowledge of anything rega r ding excess of stock as against the bo o k balance or keeping of 30 tin mustard oil in his business prem i ses. He also took the plea t hat at the relevant time, he was not p resent in the shop premises.

¶24

The p rosecution in order to substantia t e its case, examined thr e e witnesses viz P.W.1, an independe n t witness to seizure, P.W. 2 , the retired DSP, Vigilance, who c o nducted the raid and prep a red the report which was treated as F IR and also investigated i n to the case, P.W.3 is a retired clerk fr o m the Office of Civil Supp l y and was a senior assistant in the s u pply Office, Cuttack at t h e relevant time. Amongst the w i tnesses, the substantial ev i dence comes from the testimony of P.W.2 in as much that P. W .3 has simply produced a document a t the instance of the court f rom the Office of Civil Supply, C u ttack. In the defence, the P e titioner examined two witnesses.

¶25

The l e arned trial court having examined t he evidence came to hold t hat the existence of stock of 13 tin o f mustard oil as reflected in the stock register found not reflected in the board in violation o f Clause 12(2) of the Orissa Pulses Edi b le Oil Seeds and Edible O il Dealers Licensing Order, 1977 a n d held him guilty under S ection 7 of the E.C. Act and upon his conviction, sentenced hi m to undergo R.I. for 15 (Fifteen) days and to pay a fine of Rs.5,0 0 0/-(Rupees Five Thousand only).

¶26

The l e arned counsel for the Appellant, in t he contrary, submitted tha t the learned court did not appreciate the evidence

¶27

CRA No. 40 of 1998

¶28

Page 3 of 5

¶29

in its true spi r it. He further submitted that the learn e d trial court did not appr e ciate the fact that the prosecution a dmitted the Appellant wa s not present at the relevant time an d he has not been examin e d as well in order to ascertain the discrepancy found at the ti m e of alleged inspection. He further c o ntended that the prosecuti o n has measurably failed to prove th a t the articles were stock fo r sale on the other hand, the articles a s deposed to by the witnes s es were kept in a separate place and as such, the same does not attract the provisions of the relevant l aw. It is also contended tha t the Collector, under Section 6(a)of the E.C. Act verifying all d ocuments and hearing the prosecut i on in Misc. Case No.14 o f 1986, directed release of the artic l es seized in connection with the investigation and the learned t r ial court did not appreciate the aforesaid fact and jumped to a c onclusion in holding the P e titioner to have violated the provisi o n of Clause 12(2) of the Orissa Pulses Edible Oil Seeds an d Edible Oil Dealers Lice n sing Order, 1977 amenable him t o the penal provision und e r Section 7(c) of the E.C. Act.

¶30

The l e arned counsel for the state on th e other hand submitted tha t the impugned judgment is in accord a nce with the evidence and law and there is no infirmity in t h e impugned judgment whi c h requires interference.

¶31

Havin g heard the learned counsel for the Par t ies and upon perusal of the evidence led before the learned trial c ourt as well as the finding s recorded, this Court is of the view that the sole evidence of t h e Inspector, who found the discrepan c y at the time of the raid, c o uld not be substantiated by the Appe l lant through his defence. T he trial in the case being one of qu a si-judicial in

¶32

CRA No. 40 of 1998

¶33

Page 4 of 5

¶34

nature and t h e Appellant having availed the o p portunity of adducing defe n ce evidence could not establish by d o cuments that the discrepancy found in course of the raid is not in c ontravention of the relevan t law. Consequently, the mere eviden c e contrary to the version o f the P.W.2 does not in any manner dislodge the documentary e vidence proved against the Appellant.

¶35

In vie w of the discussions made hereinabo v e, while this Court does n o t find any illegality or perversity in t h e finding of guilt recorde d by the learned trial court against t h e Appellant under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, regard being had to t h e facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence a n d the period that has elapsed since th e occurrence, this Court is of the opinion that the Appellant deserves the benefit of the p rovisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Accordingly, while sustaining the conviction, th e substantive sentence awar d ed by the trial court is set aside. The Appellant is directed to b e released on probation of good c o nduct under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, on his entering into a bond with one surety to the satisfacti o n of the trial court, to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a p eriod of one year. During t his period, the Appellant shall rem a in under the supervision o f the concerned probation officer, who s hall monitor his conduct a n d submit reports to the trial court. I n default of maintaining s u ch conduct, he shall be liable to undergo the sentence as i m posed by the trial court.

¶36

Signature Not Verified

¶37

Digitally Signed Bijay Signed by: BIJAY KETAN SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORI SSA Date: 17-Sep-2025 15:37:04

¶38

(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge

¶39

CRA No. 40 of 1998

¶40

Page 5 of 5

Barada v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Barada 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

Vinodini Rai @ Barman Vs State of Odisha

Kiran Kumar Panda@Rikan Vs Commnr. Cum Secy., Home Affairs Dept., Bbsr

Aditya Kumar Das Vs Ranjita Biswal

Harekrushna Parida Vs State of Odisha

Chandrasekhar Nayak Vs Harapriti Samal

Prabhanjan Sahoo @ Sahu Vs State of Odisha