Chaitanya Nahak vs State Of Odisha

S.K. Sahoo, J

The appellant Chaitanya Nahak was summarily tried in the Court of learned Sessions Judge -cum- Special Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur in 2 (C) C.C.

No.08 of 1989 for offences punishable under sections 7 and 9 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereafter ‘E.C. Act’) for contravention

of the provisions under Clause 3(1) of the Orissa Sugar Dealers’

Licensing Order, 1963 (hereafter ‘1963 Order’), Clause 6 of the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965 (hereafter ‘1965 Order’)

and Clause 14 of the Orissa Wheat and Wheat Products Control Order, 1988 (hereafter ‘1988 Order’).

The learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 06.09.1990 found the appellant guilty of the offences under sections 7 and 9 of the

E.C. Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months on each count and directed the sentences to run

concurrently.

The case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that Sundarpur Service Cooperative Society (hereafter ‘S.S.C. Society’), a Society registered

under the Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1962 had taken out the licenses vide Exts.1, 2 and 3 under the 1963 Order, 1965 Order and 1988 Order

respectively to deal with sugar, rice and wheat as a retail dealer at village Sundarpur during the year 1986-87. On the strength of such licenses, the

S.S.C. Society applied for authority to deal with those essential commodities on behalf of the consumers covered under Public Distribution System.

The Sub-Collector, Chatrapur, who was the licensing authority in that regard, authorized the Secretary, S.S.C. Society i.e. the appellant to be the

dealer for dealing with such commodities under the Public Distribution System. For Page 2 of 49 lifting the stock of those commodities meant for

distribution under the public distribution system, the Sub-Collector or his subordinate i.e. Block Development Officer, Chatrapur, Ganjam used to pass

allotment orders in favour of the S.S.C. Society for taking delivery through its Secretary and pursuant to the allotment orders vide Exts.15, 17, 19, 21,

23 and 25 passed by Block Development Officer, Chatrapur, Ganjam, the release orders vide Exts.16, 18, 20, 22, 24 and 26 were issued for issue of

the commodities in favour of the Secretary, S.S.C. Society from the side of the stockist from time to time during that licensing period.

It is the further prosecution case that on 24.02.1989 at about 3 p.m., Md. Habibulla (P.W.1), Inspector of Supplies, Block Office, Chatrapur who is the

Complainant of the case along with Sri Bauribandhu Padhi, Inspector of Supplies, Headquarter, Chatrapur visited the business premises of the S.S.C.

Society and found that the appellant who was the Secretary was present there and on demand, he produced books of account of sugar, wheat,

wholemeal Atta and rice relating to the fair price shop for the period 12/88 to 1/89. Exts.4 to 7 were the registers in respect of sugar, Exts.8 to 11

were the registers in respect of wheat and Exts.12 to 14 were the registers in respect of rice which were placed for inspection in compliance of the

direction.

It is the further prosecution case that on going through those registers, P.W.1 noticed that pursuant to the orders under Ext.15 of the allotting authority

and Ext.16 of the licensing authority, the appellant had lifted sixteen quintals of sugar on 11.01.1989 by acknowledging receipt against the entries

Ext.4/1 of the Sugar log book and Ext.5/1 of the Sugar stock register and stated to have distributed the same by 20.01.1989 without collecting the

signatures of the purchasers against the relevant entries made in the Sugar sales register, Ist Volume (Ext.7). In the Sugar sales register, 2nd Volume

(Ext.6), P.W.1 noticed noting of sale of sugar in favour of ration card holders without collection of signatures of the concerned card holders at pages

22, 24, 28, 32 and at several other pages. As against sugar allotment order dated 11.01.1989 (Ext.17) and issue order dated 30.01.1989 (Ext.18), the

appellant lifted 16 quintals of sugar on 06.02.1989 on behalf of the S.S.C. Society by acknowledging receipt against the entries Ext.4/2 of the Sugar log

book dated 06.02.1989 and Ext.5/2 of the Sugar stock register, however he indicated disposal of the said stock prior to its actual receipt in between the

3rd and 5th February 1989 by making postings at pages 22 to 40 of the Sugar sales register (Ext.6) and also at page 22 of the Sugar stock register

(Ext.5) displaying manipulation of accounts. P.W.1 further noticed that the stock of sugar collected on 11.01.1989 had been totally disposed of on sale

by 20.01.1989 as endorsed in Sugar stock register (Ext.5) at page 22, yet, sale of sugar had been indicated in between the 3rd and 5th February 1989,

though no stock of sugar had been collected prior to 06.02.1989 as per the entry Ext.4/2 in the Sugar log book.

It is the further prosecution case that the appellant had indicated sale of 10 kgs. of wheat to each of the consumers approaching the establishment on

18th, 19th and 20th of January 1989 by making postings at pages 23 to 26 of wheat sales register (Ext.10) from out of the stock of 7 quintals of wheat,

which he had lifted pursuant to the allotment order dated 12.12.1988 (Ext.19) and issue order dated 11.01.1989 (Ext.20) by appending

acknowledgment receipts in the entries, Exts.8/1 and 9/1 of the log book and stock book maintained respectively concerning wheat. It was further

noticed that as against the allotment order dated 11.01.1989 (Ext.21) and issue order dated 30.01.1989 (Ext.22), the appellant had lifted 8 quintals of

wheat on 31.01.1989 and posted the fact of receipt against the entries vide Exts.8/2 and 9/2 in the log book and wheat and Atta stock register

respectively and shown to have disposed of that entire stock on 5th and 6th of February 1989 by making postings at pages 27 to 30 of the wheat sales

register (Ext.10) reflecting supply at the flat rate of 10 kgs. in favour of each of the named customers.

It is the further prosecution case that pursuant to the allotment order (Ext.23) and issue order (Ext.24), the appellant had lifted 8 quintals of wheat

flour on 02.02.1989 on acknowledging receipt against the entry Ext.8/3 and the entry at page 9 of Ext.9 and indicated sale of that stock on 6th and 7th

of February 1989 in the Atta sales register (Ext.11) at pages 1 to 3 without collecting the signatures of any of the purchasers against the concerned

entries.

It is the further prosecution case that P.W.1 noticed that as against the allotment order dated 29.11.1988 (Ext.25) and issue order dated 11.01.1989

(Ext.26), the appellant had lifted 27 quintals of rice on 17.01.1989 on acknowledging receipt in the log book and stock register vide entries Exts.12/1

and 13/1 respectively and indicated distribution of that stock in the rice sales register (Ext.14) at pages 11 to 17 in between 18th and 20th January

1989 at the flat rate of 10 or 15 kgs. to each of their consumers.

Suspecting foul play, P.W.1 questioned the appellant for not collecting the signatures of the customers in the Atta sales register (Ext.11) and the

appellant told P.W.1 to have disposed of the stock at Chatrapur on refusal of the customers to lift wheat flour and rice and at the behest of P.W.1, the

appellant put down his said statement in writing upon Exts.11 and 14 by making the entries Exts.11/1 and 14/1 respectively.

It is the further prosecution case that P.W.1 invited the attention of the appellant to the irregularities noticed concerning the distribution of sugar and

the appellant made the statement dated 24.02.1989 (Ext.27) in his own hand that he had disposed of 32 quintals of sugar, 15 quintals of wheat and 8

quintals of wheat flour and 27 quintals of rice to the outsiders at Chatrapur, instead of distributing the same among the customers who were holding

ration cards and manipulated the registers. On further scrutiny, P.W.1 noticed the entries vide Exts.9/3 and 5/3 made by the allotting authority i.e.

B.D.O., Chatrapur on 22.02.1989 for keeping record of the irregularities after making the appellant to acknowledge that fact by endorsing upon Ext.5

in his own hand the endorsement i.e. Exts.5/3 and 5/4.

P.W.1 took the registers, Exts.4 to 14 to his custody from the possession of the appellant and on contacting some of the consumers, whose names

were appearing in the sugar sales registers vide Exts.6 and 7, he recorded their statements i.e. Exts.28 to 31, in addition to collecting their ration cards

i.e. Exts.32 to 38 in support of their statements that they had never been supplied with the commodities as indicated in Exts.6 and 7. P.W.1 submitted

the prosecution report (Ext.40) to the Sub-Collector, Chatrapur who in turn communicated the same under his office letter no.3011 dated 06.09.1989

(Ext.41) to the learned Special Judge, Berhampur.

After receipt of the prosecution report, on 13.09.1989 the learned Special Judge, Berhampur took cognizance of offence under section 7 of the E.C.

Act and issued process against the appellant. After the appellant appeared in the case, on 14.02.1990 the particulars of the offences as alleged in the

prosecution report were stated to him, to which he pleaded not guilty.

During summary trial of the case, in order to prove its case, the prosecution examined three witnesses.

P.W.1 Mohammed Habibulla, who was the Inspector of Civil Supplies attached to the establishment of the S.D.O., Chatrapur is the complainant in the

case. As an Inspecting Officer, he visited the business premises of S.S.C. Society in which the appellant was the Secretary. Finding irregularities in

the distribution of essential commodities, he submitted the prosecution report (Ext.40) against the appellant.

P.W.2 Ram Swarup Agrawal was managing the business affair of M/s. Ramchandra Agrawal, Storage Agent, Chatrapur of the Orissa State Civil

Supplies Corporation. He stated to have supplied sixteen quintals of sugar to the appellant on 11.01.1989 on his producing the order of the licensing

authority vide Ext.16 and after collecting the signature of the appellant in sugar sales register (Ext.42) and further stated to have supplied sixteen

quintals of sugar on 06.02.1989 on the strength of issue order dated 30.01.1989 (Ext.18). He further stated that on 11.01.1989, 31.01.1989 and

02.02.1989, on the basis of the issue orders vide Exts.20, 22 and 24, he supplied 24 quintals, 7 quintals and 8 quintals of wheat and wheat-product

(flour) respectively to the appellant by making necessary endorsements in his register and collecting signatures of the appellant against the entries. He

further stated that on 17.01.1989, he had supplied 27 quintals of rice to the appellant on the strength of issue order dated 11.01.1989 vide Ext.26 after

making necessary endorsement in the register and collecting the signatures of the appellant against the entries.

P.W.3 Udayanath Panda is a consumer of the essential commodities under the S.S.C. Society in which the appellant was the Secretary. He stated

that he always puts his signature and never puts his thumb impression upon any paper. He further stated that during November or December 1988 or

during the succeeding two months, he had never been to the office of S.S.C. Society in order to lift control commodities but deputed his children to

secure the required stock on his behalf. He further stated that no Inspector of Supplies had ever made any enquiry from him concerning supply of

ration. He further stated that one officer had come to him and told him to put his signature on a paper in order to get rice and accordingly, he put his

signature underneath the statement (Ext.31), which is a false statement to the effect that he had not lifted the stock of rice, wheat or sugar from

November 1988 to February 1989 and that he had never lifted any sugar on 04.02.1989 as entered in Ext.6.

The prosecution exhibited forty four documents. Ext.1 is the licence for sugar, Ext.2 is the licence for rice and paddy, Ext.3 is the licence for wheat

and wheat products, Ext.4 is the sugar log book, Ext.5 is the sugar stock register, Ext.6 is the sugar sales register (2nd volume), Ext.7 is the sugar

sales register (1st volume), Ext.8 is the wheat log book, Ext.9 is the wheat and flour stock register, Ext.10 is the wheat sales register, Ext.11 is the

Atta sales register, Ext.12 is the rice log book, Ext.13 is the rice stock register, Ext.14 is the rice sales register, Ext.15 is the order of allotting authority

dated 09.12.1988 for sugar, Ext.16 is the order of licensing authority dated 11.01.1989 for sugar, Ext.17 is the allotment order dated 11.01.1989 for

sugar, Ext.18 is the issue order dated 30.01.1989 for sugar, Ext. 19 is the wheat allotment order dated 12.12.1988, Ext.20 is the wheat issue order

dated 12.12.1988, Ext.21 is the allotment order dated 11.01.1989 for wheat, Ext.22 is the issue order dated 30.01.1989, Ext.23 is the allotment order

for flour dated 20.01.1989, Ext.24 is the issue order for flour dated 30.01.1989, Ext.25 is the allotment order for rice, Ext.26 is the issue order dated

11.01.1989 for rice, Ext.27 is the statement of the appellant dated 24.02.1989, Ext.28 is the statement of Kora Behera dated 05.03.1989, Ext.29 is the

statement of A.Dhanu Dora dated 05.03.1989, Ext.30 is the statement of Ram Ch. Panda dated 05.03.1989, Ext.31 is statement of Udayanath Panda

dated 14.03.1989, Ext.32 is the ration card No.973, Ext.33 is the ration card No.12, Ext.34 is the ration card No.981, Ext.35 is the ration card No.3,

Ext.36 is the ration card No.1147, Ext.37 is the ration card No.883, Ext.38 is the ration card No.528, Ext.39 is the seizure list, Ext.40 is the prosecution

report, Ext.41 is the complaint, Ext.42 is the entry dated 11.01.1989 in the sugar sales register, Ext.42/1 is the entry dated 06.02.1989 in the sugar sales

register, Ext.43 is the entry dated 11.01.1989 in wheat issue register, Ext.43/1 is the relevant entry at page 28 of the wheat issue register, Ext.43/2 is

the entry dated 02.02.1989 at page 58 of the wheat issue register and Ext.44 is the entry dated 17.01.1989 in rice issue register.

The defence plea of the appellant was that he was functioning as the Secretary of S.S.C. Society and on the strength of the licenses Exts.1 to 3, he

secured stocks of sugar, wheat, wheat flour and rice on behalf of the licensee for distribution under the public distribution system. He pleaded that

S.S.C. Society, which had taken the licence had passed the resolution vide Ext.A on 25.12.1987 to make supply of the essential commodities secured

under the licences to the customers through the members of Board of Directors including D.W.1, the then Vice President and pursuant to such

resolution, the members of the Board had been in the habit of taking charge of the stocks of essential commodities secured by him from the stockist

under the Page 12 of 49 issue order of the authority and after distributing those among the customers on making entries in the relevant registers by

themselves, making over the price of the commodities sold to him from time to time on collecting receipts of payment from him, like Exts.B to B/b.

It is further pleaded by the appellant that while such practice was continuing, his mother died and he remained on leave. During the period of his

absence, the members of the Board of Directors transacted the business and during their term of engagement, all the mistakes were noticed by P.W.1

in the maintenance of the registers. It is further pleaded by the appellant that he was not directly responsible for the irregularities but the members of

the Board of Directors were responsible and therefore, he had no personal accountability. He pleaded that the statements Exts.5/4 and 27 were

involuntary statements and he had to put his signature thereupon under compulsion.

The appellant in support of his defence plea examined one witness namely Ganga Sahu (D.W.1), Vice President of the S.S.C. Society who stated that

the sale transactions in respect of the essential commodities were being directly entered into and transacted by the Managing Board of the Society

under the supervision of the village committee always during the period of his office as Vice President. He further stated that the society had taken

the licence in the name of the Secretary, but it was beyond the capacity of the Secretary alone to deal with the consumers for which the Managing

Board was dealing with the matter directly by passing a resolution to that effect. He further stated that the entries in Exts.6, 7, 10, 11, 13 and 14 were

made in between 06.02.1989 to 16.02.1989 so also the entries made during that period were not in the handwriting of the appellant with which he was

acquainted. The Board had engaged the local students to make entries during that period.

The defence exhibited three documents. Ext.A is the resolution in the minute book, Exts.B, B/a and B/b are the receipts.

6.