CUTTACK, India, April 27 -- Orissa High Court issued the following order on March 26:

1. The present Criminal Appeal, filed by the appellant is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.04.1993 passed by the learned Special Court, Mayurbhanj, Baripada in 2(c)C.C. Case No.19 of 1991, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act for violation of the Orissa Kerosene Control Order, 1962. On that count, he has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of one month.

2. Heard Mr. Mohammad Faradish, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Aurobinda Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the accused was running a shop near the weekly market at Betnoti. On 25.05.1990, the Marketing Inspector, Betnoti conducted a surprise inspection of the said shop and found that the accused was in possession of 27 litres of kerosene oil stored in three tins within the shop premises. As possession of kerosene oil in excess of 10 litres without a valid dealer's licence is prohibited, the Marketing Inspector seized the said three tins containing 27 litres of kerosene oil and submitted the prosecution report.

The accused does not dispute the factum of seizure of the kerosene oil and the tins from his shop. However, his defence is that only 7 litres of kerosene oil belonged to him for personal use, and the remaining 20 litres had been kept in front of his shop by another person without his knowledge or ownership.

4. In order to establish its case, the prosecution has examined two witnesses. P.W.1 was a Headmaster of the local M.E. Schol, and P.W.2 was the Marketing Officer. It is admitted by the witnesses that the accused was running a shop near the weekly market at Betnoti and that, on 25.05.1990, the Marketing Inspector, Betnoti seized two kerosene tins and one soybean tin containing kerosene oil from the shop premises of the accused.

In support of his defence, the accused has examined one witness, D.W.1, namely, Bijaya Kumar Das. He is a front-door neighbour of the accused and, in all likelihood, has deposed with a view to support the defence version.

5. Upon a meticulous scrutiny of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court arrived at the conclusion that 27 litres of kerosene oil, contained in three tins along with certain measuring implements were seized from the shop premises of the accused.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=GWFLvJcsCcaCuP2ZVXdoukWt5nRDSt3UdrHRj4K93KWm2Tq5FlofHCxwv9bjOWgi&caseno=CRA/147/1993&cCode=1&cino=ODHC010001941993&state_code=11&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.