1996 (8) TMI 515 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court: Goods in transit not 'storage' under Orissa Rice Control Order

The Supreme Court ruled that goods found in a moving vehicle do not constitute 'storage' under the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965. The ... - Issues Involved:1. Interpretation of 'storage' within the meaning of the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965.2. Whether goods found in a moving vehicle amount to 'storage' under the Order.Summary:Issue 1: Interpretation of 'storage' within the meaning of the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965Section 3(1) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 empowers the Central Government to regulate or prohibit the production, supply, and distribution of essential commodities. Section 3(2)(d) specifically allows for regulating the storage, transport, distribution, disposal, acquisition, use, or consumption of any essential commodity. Section 7 makes contravention of any order made u/s 3 punishable.The Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965, issued u/s 3 of the Act, mandates that no person shall act as a dealer without a licence. Clause 3(2) of the Order deems any person storing rice or paddy in quantities exceeding ten quintals to be a dealer. The term 'dealer' is defined in clause 2(b) to include anyone who purchases, sells, or stores rice or paddy in wholesale quantities.Issue 2: Whether goods found in a moving vehicle amount to 'storage' under the OrderThe appellants were found transporting paddy in excess of the permissible limit without a licence and were convicted u/s 7 of the Act. The High Court upheld the conviction, interpreting 'storage' to include goods in transit in a moving vehicle.The Supreme Court examined two sets of judicial opinions: one following the Orissa High Court's decision in Balabhadra Raja Guru Mohapatra v. State, which held that goods in transit amounted to 'storage,' and another following Prem Bahadur v. The State of Orissa, which held that possession of stock in a moving vehicle does not amount to 'storage.'The Court referred to dictionary definitions of 'store' and concluded that 'storing' implies an element of continuity and keeping goods for future use. Transporting goods in a vehicle does not per se constitute 'storing,' although a vehicle can be used as a store in certain circumstances. The Court emphasized that transporting and storing are distinct acts as per Section 3(2)(d) of the Act.The Court found itself in agreement with the view expressed in Prem Bahadur's case, which stated that 'storage' connotes continued possession and is connected with a regular place of storage. Transshipment in a moving vehicle does not amount to 'storage.'The Court also referred to the principle of strict construction of penal statutes, as stated in Tolaram v. State of Bombay and Sanjay Dutt v. The State through C.B.I., Bombay, emphasizing that penal provisions should not be stretched to impose penalties.The Court distinguished the present case from S.K. Amir v. The State of Maharashtra and Swantraj & Others v. State of Maharashtra, noting that the facts and statutory contexts were different.Conclusion:The Supreme Court held that merely finding goods in a moving truck does not amount to 'storing' within the meaning of the Order. The appellants were not liable to be convicted or sentenced u/s 7 of the Act. The appeals were allowed, the convictions were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted. Their bail bonds were discharged.