The Orissa High Court reaffirmed that where an accused establishes that a bona fide application for a requisite licence under the Orissa Pulses, Edible Oilseeds and Edible Oils Dealers (Licensing) Order, 1977 was filed and pending with the authorities at the time of alleged offence, penal consequences under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act do not arise, as the mens rea for wilful violation is absent. The judgment closely follows and applies principles from established precedents, reinforcing existing law for practitioners and lower judiciary within Orissa.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRA/270/1999 of K.SANKAR SUBUDHI Vs STATE |
| CNR | ODHC010005151999 |
| Date of Registration | 01-01-1999 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA |
| Court | Orissa High Court |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Orissa High Court jurisdiction |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Criminal Law, Regulatory Law (Essential Commodities Act, 1955; Licensing Orders) |
| Questions of Law | Whether an accused who had submitted a bona fide application for a licence under the Orissa Licensing Order, pending at the date of alleged offence, can be held guilty of contravention under Section 7 of the EC Act. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
Where the accused demonstrably submits a valid application for a requisite licence under the Orissa Pulses, Edible Oilseeds and Edible Oils Dealers (Licensing) Order, 1977 and such application is pending with authorities at the relevant time, the core criminal ingredient—mens rea/wilful contravention—is not established. In the absence of deliberate breach, penal consequences under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act are unsustainable. The prosecution’s evidence regarding contravention is overridden by proof of bona fide steps taken towards compliance. The trial court’s failure to appreciate the existence and pendency of the application amounts to miscarriage of justice. The court follows and applies the ratio of Nathulal (SC), Balasa Venkatesa Perumal (AP HC), and V. Manmath Rao (Orissa HC). |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Focus on requirement of culpable mental state (mens rea); absence of wilful contravention negates criminality under EC Act; administrative delay should not visit penal consequences on bona fide applicants. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Accused’s mill premises were raided and pulses found stored beyond permissible limits; accused claimed to have submitted an application for licence with requisite fee, which was pending; documentary and oral evidence corroborated this; trial court convicted solely on fact of storage; defence established bona fide application was pending; Orissa HC held absence of mens rea and set aside conviction and sentence. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the Orissa High Court’s jurisdiction |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts confronting similar facts and statutory framework |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates and clarifies that bona fide pendency of a licence application, duly supported by documentary evidence, negates the mens rea element for offences under the Essential Commodities Act.
- Confirms that courts must consider evidence of efforts towards compliance, not just the factual contravention.
- Establishes that administrative or official delay in processing licence applications cannot be used to penalise applicants.
- Reaffirms benefit of doubt principle in favour of accused where compliance steps are proven on record.
- Lawyers should meticulously obtain and present official records and evidence of licence applications pending at the time of alleged contravention.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court carefully analysed the oral and documentary evidence (notably D.W.1’s testimony and Exhibit B) establishing that the accused had filed the requisite application for a producer’s licence prior to the date of the alleged offence.
- The Court found that the trial judge erred by disregarding this critical fact and convicting solely on the basis of the storage of pulses in excess of permitted quantity.
- The Court applied the ratio of Nathulal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (SC), which requires proof of deliberate and intentional contravention for criminal liability under the EC Act, and adopted analogous reasoning from Balasa Venkatesa Perumal (AP HC) and V. Manmath Rao (Orissa HC).
- It was held that bona fide application and pendency negates mens rea—criminal intent for violating licensing orders.
- The conviction and sentence were accordingly set aside, extending benefit of doubt to the accused.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Accused/Appellants):
- Application for requisite producer’s licence was submitted and pending before authorities at the time of the alleged contravention.
- No wilful contravention since steps towards compliance were bona fide taken.
- Supported by documentary evidence (Entry in Register, forwarding letter, treasury challan) and oral evidence (D.W.1).
- Trial court failed to appreciate this evidence, causing miscarriage of justice.
- Relied on judgments: Nathulal (SC), Balasa Venkatesa Perumal (AP HC), V. Manmath Rao (Orissa HC).
Respondent (State):
- Prosecution evidence is unimpeachable and credible.
- All prosecution witnesses withstood cross-examination; defence failed to cast doubt.
- Accused could not produce a valid licence at the time of inspection.
- Trial court’s conviction was appropriate.
Factual Background
On 13.04.1990, the mill premises operated by the accused at Berhampur were raided by Supply Department officials. Large quantities of pulses were discovered stored above permissible limits. The accused present failed to produce a valid licence but claimed that an application for a producer’s licence had been submitted with the necessary fee. Documentary and oral evidence indicated the application’s actual, ongoing pendency. The trial court convicted the accused for violating licensing regulations under the Essential Commodities Act; the High Court appeal followed.
Statutory Analysis
- Clauses 3(2) and 12 of the Orissa Pulses, Edible Oilseeds and Edible Oils Dealers (Licensing) Order, 1977 were in focus, regulating storage and licensing for pulses.
- Notification No. 26011 dated 12.08.1988, setting limits.
- Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act—penalty for contravention of orders made under Section 3.
- The Court interpreted these provisions in light of the Supreme Court’s reading in Nathulal, holding that scienter (knowledge and intention) is required for criminal liability, and absence of wilful default owing to bona fide efforts at compliance is a valid defence.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – When existing law is affirmed.