Nilamani Pradhan vs State of Orissa

B.P. Das, J.—This is an application u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to quash the proceeding initiated u/s 7 of the Essential Commodities Act against the petitioner in 2(c)c case No. 1-A of 1990 pending in the Court of Special Judge-cum-Sessions Judge, Bolangir.

The brief facts leading to this application are that on 2.12.1988 at village Badkarli, near Rampur Police Station in Bolangir district, a truck bearing registration No. ORS 6755 was found transporting 120 bags of paddy weighing about 90 quintals by the Inspector of Supplies of Bolangir District. The driver of the truck Rajkishore Gadnayak produced a transit permit before the Enforcement Squad showing that the paddy was being transported from Hirmunda of Sambalpur district to Nalini Rice Mill at Baijamunda of the same district. The present petitioner was the owner of the said rice mill. It is contended that the present petitioner Nilamani Pradhan, who was the owner of the paddy was a licensee under the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order and his licence was only confined to Sambalpur district. The aforesaid truck was detected along with the paddy collected in Bolangir district. On the aforesaid allegation, prosecution report was submitted against the present petitioner as well as the driver and one Surendra Pradhan, who alleged to have made confessional statement before the Enforcement Squad to the effect that he procured paddy from Bolangir District and was sending the same to Nalini Rice Mill of Sambalpur District. Basing on the aforesaid confession of the said Surendra Pradhan, the truck was detected and prosecution was launched against the petitioner, the driver of the truck and said Surendra Pradhan and cognizance was taken for the alleged commission of offence punishable u/s 7 of the E.C. Act in 2(c) C.C. Case No. 1 of 1999 in the Court of Special Judge, Bolangir. It is further stated by the petitioner that he could only come to know about the case when N.B.W. was issued against him and that the aforesaid prosecution was launched against him and in the meantime there is split up in the trial and N.B.W. was issued against him. It is further stated that the trial of the main case i.e. 2 (c) C.C. Case No. 1-A of 1990 which was based on the confessional statement of Surendra Pradhan that rice was procured from Bolangir district, was ended in acquittal so far as the accused Surendra Kumar Pradhan is concerned. The judgment in the main case was pronounced on 23.4.1993. The learned Special Judge was pleased to hold that the prosecution was launched on a misconceived notion.

The trial Court further held that the accused basing on whose confessional statement, prosecution was launched was neither a licensee nor the person who violated any provisions of the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order. The further finding of the trial Court is that there was no evidence to prove that paddy was purchased from Tangarkerla area. Therefore, the learned trial Court reached at the conclusion that it was hazardous to conclude that the accused was dealing paddy without licence. In the last part of the judgment, the learned trial Court held as follows :

" x x x As it appears, the only exception taken in this case is that the licensee instead of purchasing paddy in Sambalpur district has collected it from Bolangir district. It may be mentioned here that as per the evidence of P.W. 1 Hiromunda of Sambalpur district can be approached by truck road from Nalini Rice Mill. Sambalpur only through Bolangir District. It appears to me that the entire prosecution case is misconceived x x x".

Basing on the aforesaid finding, the prosecution so launched as against Surendra ended in acquittal. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the categorical finding of the trial Court in the case of Surendra that the prosecution failed to establish that rice was procured from Bolangir district and that the evidence came to the effect that though the truck was intercepted in Bolangir District, the rice was procured in the District of Sambalpur i.e. Hiromunda. Further, it is held that in order to reach at Baijamunda i.e. where the mill of the petitioner is situated, one has to pass through a portion of Bolangir District as that is the only route. Basing on all these facts, the learned counsel for the petitioner argues that since the entire case of the prosecution is held to be misconceived in the aforesaid judgment, so passed in respect of the co-accused, basing whose statement the prosecution was launched, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the proceeding against the petitioner and prays to quash the entire proceeding.

Besides the aforesaid ground, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even for the sake of argument, if the allegation of the prosecution is admitted in toto, the prosecution cannot succeed as transportation of rice without permit does not amount to storage attracting violation of Clause 3 read with Clause 2(b) of the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order thereby ultimately attracting the offence u/s 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 6. This aspect was vividly dealt with by the apex Court in the case of Bijaya Kumar Agarwala v. State of Orissa and Jagdish Prasad Agarwal v. State of Orissa, reported in (1996) 11 OCR (SO) 573wherein it was held that a truck moving with paddy without permit could not be termed as storing of goods and as such it would not attract violation of Clause 3 (ii) (b) of the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965 and thereby warranting conviction u/s 7 of the E.C. Act. This case was relied upon by this Court in Pratap Rudra Mishra alias Pratap Chandra Mishra v. Susanta Kumar Hota, Inspector of Supplies, reported in * (2000) 18 OCR 644 wherein it has been held that carrying goods in a vehicle cannot per se be ''storing'' although it may be quite possible that a vehicle is used as a store. Transporting is not storing. In the present case, there is nothing to indicate that the paddy was not transported but stored in the truck. The admitted case is that the truck was intercepted while paddy was transported. Learned counsel for the State submits that it is not a case where this Court should interfere with the cognizance in exercise of its power u/s 482, Cr.P.C. But in my considered opinion, as one of the co-accused persons has already been acquitted and when there is clear finding in the aforesaid order of acquittal that the prosecution was misconceived, by directing the petitioner to appear and face the trial and put forth his grievances before the trial Court and pray for his discharge, would be abuse of the process of law when the prosecution has no case.

In the case of M/s. Pepsi Foods Ltd. and others v. Special Judicial Magistrate and others reported in (1998) 14 OCR (SO 1 wherein the Supreme Court held as follows:

"No doubt the Magistrate can discharge the accused at any stage of the trial if he considers the charge to be groundless, but that does not mean that the accused cannot approach the High Court u/s 482 of the Code or Art. 227 of the Constitution to have the proceeding quashed against him when the complaint does not make out any case against him and still he must undergo the agony of a criminal trial, xx x x"

Considering all the aforesaid aspects, I hold that this is a fit case where to prevent abuse of process of law, ends of justice would be served if the power u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is exercised. Accordingly, I find that no case u/s 7 of the E.C. Act has been made out as there is no violation of Control Order. The cognizance taken by the learned Special Judge, Bolangir in 2 (c) C.C. Case No. 1-A of 1990(A) against the petitioner Nilamani Pradhan is therefore, quashed.

Criminal Misc. Case is accordingly allowed.