The Orissa High Court in the case Ananda Ch. Sahu v. State of Odisha observed and has held that the Executive Magistrate is not empowered to record confession for offences committed under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The court in the case also held that in absence of any specific procedure which governs the recording of confession and trial under the Act, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shall be applied.
The Single bench headed by Justice Sashikanta Mishra in the case observed while clarifying the position of law and stated that the very words, or under any other law for the time being in force implies that the investigation which is conducted in respect of the offences stated under Special Acts like the Essential Commodities Act shall also be governed by the provisions as stated under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure unless the court laid down a specific procedure in such Act(s)
Facts of the Case:
M/s. Minati Stores, in course of inspection on March 24, 1984, it is to be found that even though there being no record of any stock of groundnut in shell and yet also on the physical verification at two separate places, the total stock of Qt. 40.95 KGs of groundnuts in shell was also being found.
The court observed that the firm was found in the business of selling and purchasing of groundnuts beyond the permissible limit and the same was done without possessing any licence. Further, no stock and price declaration board were exhibited either in the shop premises or in the godown, wherein it was alleged that the above amounts to contravention as stated under Clause-3 of Orissa Declaration of Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1973.
The court in the case also placed reliance on a confessional statement of an accused, the evidence of the complainant and Executive Magistrate, wherein the confession has been recorded to hold the accused persons guilty of the offence alleged before the court.
Further, an appeal was filed by the applicant before the High Court and the applicant assailed the judgment of conviction on two grounds, firstly, the court in the case could have relied upon the confessional statement of the accused and the same is inadmissible in the eye of law and secondly, the evidence on record does not at all link the accused persons with the occurrence.
Accordingly, the court set aside the conviction made and the sentence imposed on the accused persons.
The counsel, Advocate Mr. S. Sharma appeared for the Appellant.
The counsel, Advocate Mr. Sailaza Nandan Das represented the State.
