Skip to content


Dwaraka Prasad Agarwala Vs. State and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtOrissa High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1982CriLJ713
AppellantDwaraka Prasad Agarwala
RespondentState and anr.
Cases Referred(State of Orissa v. Chandrika Mohapatra). As
Excerpt:
.....the loan account of the accused of a forest offence, it would lead to a system to reward him by repayment of his loan. then it does not become a penalty nor the action become punitive, but it remains as a reward to the accused of forest offence. such a concept is totally not conceivable from any provision in the act, 1972 or the act, 1951. [air 2002 orissa 130 overruled]. - according to him there was no contravention of clauses 3 and 11 of the orissa rice and paddy control order, 1965, as the petitioner has satisfied the authorities that he has a valid licence to deal in rice and paddy as a wholesale dealer. he has to make out some ground which would show that the prosecution is sought to be withdrawn because inter alia the prosecution may not be able to produce sufficient evidence..........case inter alia on the ground that he is a licensed wholesale dealer under the orissa rice and paddy control order, 1965 and since the rice was transported from junagarh to cuttack, no offence was committed as alleged. the state government in their letter dated 2-2-1980 wrote to the s. d. o., khurda to withdraw the case as it is not tenable in law. thereafter the a. p. p. filed an application under section 321 cr.p.c. on 16-4-1980 praying for withdrawal of the case as no case was made out under the aforesaid provisions. but the s. d. j. m., khurda did not give his consent for the withdrawal of the case. against the aforesaid order of the s. d. j. m., the present revision has been filed.2. mr. patnaik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the reasons given by.....
Judgment:
ORDER

J.K. Mohanty, J.

1. Petitioner Dwaraka Prasad Agarwala is the owner of a rice mill at Junagarh in Kalahandi district. Pro-forma opposite party Jayashankar Patra (driver) was transporting 100 bags of rice from Junagarh to Cuttack on 25-9-79 in the truck bearing registration No. ORH 1699 belonging to the petitioner. On that day the Inspector of Supplies, Khurda, seized the truck and lodged prosecution report against the petitioner and the driver of the truck for contravention of Clauses 2 and 11 of the Orissa Rice and Paddv Control Order, 1974(1965?) punishable Under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Thereafter the petitioner moved th Civil Supplies authorities for withdrawal of the aforesaid case inter alia on the ground that he is a licensed wholesale dealer under the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965 and since the rice was transported from Junagarh to Cuttack, no offence was committed as alleged. The State Government in their letter dated 2-2-1980 wrote to the S. D. O., Khurda to withdraw the case as it is not tenable in law. Thereafter the A. P. P. filed an application Under Section 321 Cr.P.C. on 16-4-1980 praying for withdrawal of the case as no case was made out under the aforesaid provisions. But the S. D. J. M., Khurda did not give his consent for the withdrawal of the case. Against the aforesaid order of the S. D. J. M., the present revision has been filed.

2. Mr. Patnaik, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the reasons given by the learned Magistrate refusing to grant permission are absolutely untenable and he should have granted permission. According to him there was no contravention of Clauses 3 and 11 of the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965, as the petitioner has satisfied the authorities that he has a valid licence to deal in rice and paddy as a wholesale dealer. He relied on a decision reported in 45 Cut LT 51:1978 Cri LJ 686)(Hariram Agarwala v. State of Orissa) wherein it has been held that the act of carrying paddy in the truck does not amount to 'storing'. 'Storage' in common parlance meaning connotes the concept of continued possession. Transhipment in a moving vehicle would not amount to storage within the meaning of the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965.

3. No doubt, it is not sufficient for the Public Prosecutor merely to say that it is nob expedient to proceed with the prosecution. He has to make out some ground which would show that the prosecution is sought to be withdrawn because inter alia the prosecution may not be able to produce sufficient evidence to sustain the charge or that the prosecution does not appear to be well-founded or that there are other circumstances which clearly show that the obiect of administration of iustice would not be advanced or furthered by going on with the prosecution. The ultimate guiding consideration must always be the interest of administration of justice and that is the touchstone on which the question must be determined whether the prosecution should be allowed to be withdrawn : 1977CriLJ773 (State of Orissa v. Chandrika Mohapatra). As already indicated, in this case the petitioner has a valid licence. Also the prosecution does not appear to be well-founded. In view of the aforesaid orinci-ple. in mv opinion the Magistrate should have given consent to withdraw the case. He is directed to do so and pass necessary orders according to law.

The revision is allowed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //