GOBINDARAM AGARWALLA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE application in revision is directed against an appellate order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sambalpur upholding the conviction of the petitioner under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Clause 3 of the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Control Order) and the sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of rupees one thousand imposed on him. On 6.9.1968. P.W. 3 the Supply Supervisor checked the truck ORS 5197 while it was being driven from Sohela towards Bargarh and found the truck loaded with 67 quintals of rice. Besides the driver and the cleaner of the truck, the petitioner Gobindaram Agarwalla and four other coolies were found travelling in the said truck. Information was lodged in the Thana and enquiries revealed that the stock of rice had been purchased from M/s. Shibasankar Rice Mill Shoella. The truck and the rice were seized and after necessary investigation, a charge sheet was laid and prosecution was launched against the petitioner, the driver, the coolies and also the owners of the rice mill under Section 7 of the Act for violation of Clause 3 of the Control Order.

(2.) ALL the accused persons pleaded not guilty. The three labourers took the plea that they merely worked for wages and had loaded the rice in the truck being engaged by Gobindaram Agarwalla and are not guilty. They denied to have purchased any portion of rice themselves. The petitioner claimed that he purchased only ten quintals of the entire stock of 67 quintals and was carrying the same to Cuttack for sale. As regards the rest of the stock, his case was that the driver and the cleaner of the truck and coolies had each purchased ten quintals of rice and were transporting the same along with him to Cuttack for sale. The driver's plea was that he had purchased only ten quintals of rice out of the stock and was taking the same to Cuttack for sale. The three owners of the mill admitted that they sold 67 quintals of rice but their plea was that the sale was to seven persons at the rate of ten quintals each to six persons and the remaining 7 quintals to the other. The common plea of all the accused except the coolies was that as transaction was in respect of not more than ten quintals of rice, no licence was necessary for the purpose.

(3.) MR . S.C. Ghosh learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner however assails the finding that it is the petitioner who had purchased the entire stock. Both the Courts below have discussed the evidence on this point and have given good reasons in support of their finding that the entire stock of 67 quintals of rice had been purchased by the petitioner Gobindaram Agarwalla and having perused the evidence myself I am satisfied that the finding cannot be assailed.