N BIJAYA KUMAR CHOUDHURY Vs. B S MURTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Appeal is against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge -cum Special Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur in 2(C)CC No. 1 of 1990 (TR No. 1 of 1990) convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (for short the 'Act') for violation of Clause3 of the Orissa Food grains Dealers Licensing Order, 1964 (for short 'the order') and sentencing him to suffer the prescribed minimum period of simple imprisonment of three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ (Rupees five hundred) , in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a term of two months.

(2.) The prosecution case, in short, is that on 2031989 at about 4.00 p.m., the Assistant Civil Supplies Officer, Berhampur visited one shop in the name and style "Bhawani Bhandar" of which the deceased accused late Raj Gopal Choudhury was the owner and found that the present appellant was running the business of that shop. In the Stock cum Price Board displayed in the shop it was indicated that Q.22.50 of Suan, Q.3.00 of Ragi and Q.3.26 of Jawar were in store for sale. The inspecting party asked the appellant accused for production of the licence/authority, if any, granted under the Order for holding the stock of food grains but the appellant failed to produce the same. Therefore, with a view to prosecuting the shop owner so also the appellant accused, who was allegedly running the business of that shop, the inspecting authority copied down the entries made on the Stock cum Price Board on a sheet of paper (Ext. 1) in presence of one witness (P.W.2). The stock in the shop was verified in presence of the witness and finding that only Q.3.00 of Ragi and Q.3.26 of Jawar were available but there was no Suan in the shop premises, the appellant was asked about the Suan who disclosed that the Suan was kept in a godown at a distance from the shop and led the inspecting officers to a godown wherein Q.22.52 of Suan kept in gunny bags was found in store. Since no licence was procured by the shop owner, the inspecting officer seized the stock of those food grains and subsequently delivered the grains to the appellant to be kept in his custody on obtaining a zimanama from him. Despite notice neither the shop owner nor the present appellant produced the authority to deal with the seized stock of grains. So, the Inspector of Supplies submitted prosecution report against the shop owner as well as the appellant. Here it is worth mentioning that the shop owner having died during pendency of the criminal proceeding, the case stood abated against him.

(3.) In order to prove the allegations made in the complaint, the complainant examined himself as P.W. 1. The witness to the seizure of the grains was examined as P.W. 2. Documents relied on by the department were marked as Exts. 1 to 8. The appellant, on the other hand, examined one Senior Clerk in the establishment of Sub Collector, Berhampur to prove that as a matter of fact an application for grant of licence was made by the shop owner prior to the date of inspection of the shop but the same remained unattended to.