Dhruba Charan Giri vs State Of Orissa on 18 July, 2025

Orissa High Court

Dhruba Charan Giri vs State Of Orissa on 18 July, 2025

         THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                           CRA No.114 of 2000
(In the matter of an appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973)

Dhruba Charan Giri                 .......            Appellant

                                   -Versus-

State of Orissa                     .......          Respondent

      For the Appellant        : Ms. Rakhi Mishra,
                                 Amicus Curiae
      For the Respondent       : Mr. S.J. Mohanty,
                                 Additional Standing Counsel


CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA

Date of Hearing:08.07.2025 : Date of Judgment: 18.07.2025

S.S. Mishra, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated

29.04.2000 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-

Special Judge, Rairangpur, in G.R. Case No. 270 of 1999 (T.C. No. 10 of

1999), convicting the appellant under Section 7 of the Essential

Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the “E.C. Act“) for
alleged contravention of Section 3 of the said Act read with Clause 7 of

the Orissa Kerosene Control Order, 1962.

2. The prosecution case originates from an incident dated 5th

August 1999, when Nrusingha Charan Pradhan (P.W.2), then serving as

the Marketing Inspector (Enforcement), Rairangpur, received directions

from the Sub-Collector, Rairangpur, to proceed to the village

Bhatchhatar for inspection. The directive was issued after local villagers

had allegedly informed the Additional B.D.O. of Bisoi Block (P.W.3)

about large-scale illegal storage of kerosene and terpentine oil inside a

Dhaba situated near National Highway No.6. Acting upon this

information, a team consisting of the Marketing Inspector (P.W.2), the

Assistant Civil Supplies Officer (P.W.4), and other administrative

officials, including the Sub-Collector and Tahasildar of Rairangpur,

reached the spot around 5:30 PM on the same day. The team entered the

said Dhaba, which was alleged to be under the control of the appellant,

Dhruba Charan Giri, and conducted a search in the presence of public

witnesses and officials.

Page 2 of 10

3. During the search operation, the authorities claimed to have

recovered a full barrel containing 260 litres of kerosene oil, three plastic

jerricans, and a barrel containing 100 litres of terpentine oil, along with

one empty barrel. The appellant, who was allegedly present at the

Dhaba at the time of seizure, was asked to produce a valid licence or

any authorization document for the possession of the seized

commodities. Upon his failure to do so, the articles were seized under

seizure list marked Ext.1/1, and a zimanama (Ext.3) was prepared for

temporary custody. Thereafter, P.W.2 lodged a First Information Report

at Bisoi Police Station, which was registered and investigated by Dhiren

Chandra Nanda (P.W.6), the Officer-in-Charge.

4. Subsequent to the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against

the appellant for alleged violation of Section 3 of the Essential

Commodities Act, 1955 and Clause 7 of the Orissa Kerosene Control

Order, 1962, punishable under Section 7 of the Act and the appellant

was put to trial. During the trial, six witnesses were examined by the

prosecution. Among them, P.Ws.2, 3, and 4, all official witnesses,

supported the prosecution’s version regarding the seizure and

Page 3 of 10
possession of the articles by the appellant. P.W.1 and P.W.5, who were

purported seizure witnesses, did not support the prosecution case and

claimed ignorance about the recovery. P.W.5 further stated that his

signature was obtained on blank paper.

5. The appellant, when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., took

the plea of complete denial. He contended that he neither owned nor

operated any Dhaba on the spot from where the alleged recovery took

place and that he had been falsely implicated by the Marketing

Inspector (P.W.2). It was also contended that the seized articles did not

belong to him, and no conclusive proof was furnished by the

prosecution to establish his ownership or conscious possession over the

premises or the articles.

6. The learned trial court held the appellant is guilty under Section 7

of the Essential Commodities Act and sentenced him to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in

default to undergo further R.I. for 15 days. Aggrieved by the said

judgment and order of conviction dated 29.04.2000 passed by the

Page 4 of 10
Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Rairangpur in G.R. Case

No.270 of 1999, the present appeal has been filed.

7. The trial Court, after credible analysis, has arrived at the

following finding-

“The accused has not cited any witness to the effect that
he had no Dhaba at the spot on the date of occurrence.
On the other hand. P. W.2 has that on 5.8.99 at the
direction of the Sub-Collector, Rairangpur he went to the
spot alongwith the A.C.S.O., Rairangpur and he seized the
articles presence of P. Ws3&4. Further it is seen that the
Collector and the Superintendent of Police, Mayurbhanj
and Sub-Collector, Rairangpur and Tahasildar were
present at the spot and at their direction P.Ws2,3, and 4
had entered into the Dhaba of the accused and they had
recovered the seized articles. Hence I am clear that on the
date of occurrence there was a Dhaba of the accused at
Bhatachhatar. So the plea of the accused is not accepted.
Hence I am clear that the accused had stored the seized
articles without obtaining any licence from the competent
authority and also he was not the authorised dealer of the
kerosene oil. Soon his private capacity, without any
authority he had stored to sell the kerosene oil and
terpentine oil to the public in higher price. Hence the
accused is found to have committed the offence U/S 3
E.C.Act.1955 and Clause 7 of Orissa Kerosene control
Order, 1962 punishable U/S7 E.C.Act.

10. Heard the convict-Dhruba Charan Giri, Learned
advocate for the convict and the Learned Special P.P. on
the question of sentence. The Learned Special P.P.

Page 5 of 10
contended that since the convict has committed an serious
offence by storing huge quantity of Kerosene Oil in his
Dhaba un-authorisedly, he may be punished severely. On
the other hand the convict and the Learned counsel for the
defence contended that the convict is a first offender and
no previous conviction has been proved against the
convict by the prosecution. Hence a lenient view may be
taken against him. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, taking into account of the
seized Kerosene oil and terpentine oil I am not inclined to
release the convict under the provision of Probation
Offenders Act. Hence on conviction I sentenced the
convict-Dhruba Charan Giri to undergo R.I.for a period
of 3 (three) months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-(Rupees
five hundred) only i.d.to undergo R.I. for a period of 15
(fifteen) days U/S 7 E.C. Act.”

8. After having found the appellant guilty of the E.C. Act, awarded

him to the sentence as mentioned above. The appellant is aggrieved by

the same and has preferred the present appeal.

9. The appeal has been pending since 2000. When the matter was

called up, none appeared on behalf of the appellant. Therefore, Ms.

Rakhi Mishra, Advocate, has been appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist

the Court.

10. Heard Ms. Mishra, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and

Mr. Mohanty, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.

Page 6 of 10

11. The learned Amicus Curiae, Ms. Mishra, after arguing the matter

on facts and law, chose to confine her submission to the quantum of

sentence. It is submitted that the alleged incident dates back to 5th

August 1999, and the appellant has since then undergone the rigors of

the trial and appeal for more than two and a half decades. The trial

concluded in the year 2000, and the appeal has remained pending since

then. The long pendency of this matter has, in itself, been an agonizing

ordeal for the appellant, who was barely in his 40s at the time of the

alleged offence and is now around 70 years of age.

12. The learned Amicus Curiae further argued that the appellant has

no criminal antecedents, and no other case of a similar nature or

otherwise is stated to be pending against him. Over the years, he has led

a dignified life, integrated well into society, and is presently leading a

settled family life. Incarcerating him after such a long delay, it is

argued, would serve little penological purpose and may in fact be

counter-productive, casting a needless stigma not only upon him but

also upon his family members, especially when there is no suggestion of

any repeat violation or ongoing non-compliance with regulatory norms.

Page 7 of 10

13. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant at length on the

question of sentence, and upon careful consideration of the record, this

Court is of the opinion that though the conviction of the appellant under

Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for violation of

Section 3 of the said Act read with Clause 7 of the Orissa Kerosene

Control Order, 1962 stands upheld on merits, a lenient view deserves to

be taken so far as the sentence is concerned.

14. Taking into consideration the entire conspectus of the matter, it

would be apt to rely on the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Tarak Nath Keshari V. State of West Bengal, reported in (2023) SCC

OnLine SC 605, in which it was held thus: –

“11. Even if there is minimum sentence provided in
Section 7 of the EC Act, in our opinion, the appellant is
entitled to the benefit of probation, the EC Act, being of
the year 1955 and the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958
being later. Even if minimum sentence is provided in the
EC Act, 1955 the same will not be a hurdle for invoking
the applicability of provisions of the Probation of
Offenders Act, 1958. Reference can be made to a
judgment of this Court in Lakhvir Singh v. The State of
Punjab.

12. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. The appellant
is directed to be released on probation under Section 4 of

Page 8 of 10
the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on entering into
bond and two sureties each to ensure that he will
maintain peace and good behaviour for the remaining
part of his sentence, failing which he can be called upon
to serve the sentence.”

15. Besides the Judgment quoted above, regard being had to the age

of the appellant, his societal status, clean antecedents and the fact that

the incident had taken place in the year 1999, I am of the considered

view that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of the Probation of

Offenders Act. Additionally, the case of the appellant is also covered by

the ratio of the judgment of this Court in the case of Pathani Parida &

another vs. Abhaya Kumar Jagdevmohapatra, reported in 2012 (Supp-

II) OLR 469. Therefore, while not interfering with the judgment of

conviction recorded against the appellant for the offence as stated

above, I am inclined to grant the benefit of the Probation of Offenders

Act so as to suffice the sentence part.

16. In such view of the matter, the present Criminal Appeal in so far

as the conviction is concerned, is turned down. But instead of

sentencing the appellant to suffer imprisonment, this Court directs the

appellant to be released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders

Page 9 of 10
Act for a period of six months on his executing bond of Rs.5,000/-

(Rupees Five Thousand) within one month with one surety for the like

amount to appear and receive the sentence when called upon during

such period and in the meantime, the appellant shall keep peace and

good behavior and he shall remain under the supervision of the

concerned Probation Officer during the aforementioned period of six

months.

17. This Court acknowledges the effective and meaningful assistance

rendered by Ms. Rakhi Mishra, learned Amicus Curiae in this case.

Learned Amicus Curiae is entitled to an honorarium of Rs.7,500/-

(Rupees seven thousand five hundred) as a token of appreciation.

18. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is disposed of.

(S.S. Mishra)
Judge

The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Dated the 18th of July, 2025/Subhasis Mohanty

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTY Page 10 of 10
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.

Date: 21-Jul-2025 19:16:34