KANCHAN CHAKRABORTY, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against judgement and order dated 16.1.1991 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court (E.C. Act), Barasat, 24 Parganas North thereby convicting the appellant under section 7(1) (a) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act and sentencing them to suffer R.I. for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ - each. The judgement impugned was passed in Special case no. 116/1988/Barasat P.S. case no. 25(9) of 1988.
(2.) ON 12.9.1988, K. C. Mondal, Inspector of Police, DEB together with the other police personnel had been to the factory ''Haribol sugar candy '' owned by Basudam Mondal and Bisnupada Das and searched the factory -cum -godown in presence of local witnesses. In all, 130 quintals and 50 kgs of sugar in 183 bags were recovered from that godown -cum -factory. Gour chandra Dutta, the Manager of the factory was present there at that time. On demand, he could not produce any authority, whatsoever, for possessing that huge quantity of sugar. So, Mr. Mondal seized the bags of sugar under a seizure list in presence of witnesses and kept those bags of sugar in the custody of one Gopal chandra Mondal. Gopal Chandra Mondal disclosed the names of owners Basudam Mondal and Bisnupada Das at the time he was arrested. One F.I.R. was lodged by Mr. Mondal against Gour Chandra Dutta, Biswanath Das and Basudam Mondal for prosecuting them under section 7(1) (a) (ii) of Act X of 1955 for violating the provisions of para 3 (a) of West Bengal Sugar dealer (licensing) order, 1980. Charge sheet was filed against them after investigating into the case. The appellants faced the trial as they pleaded not guilty to the charge. The prosecution examined 9 witnesses and filed some documents, which were admitted by the trial Court on behalf of the prosecution. The appellants, in their defense had taken the plea that the sugar seized by DEB personnel was supplied by their customers for making ''Batasa '' and ''Candy ''. In support of such defense, the appellants examined 11 witnesses and filed some documents in Court some of which were admitted into evidence and marked exhibit. Upon consideration of evidence on record adduced by both the sides, the learned Judge came to a conclusion that the appellants violated the rule and, as such, they are guilty of the offence charged with.
(3.) MR . Mukherjee, appearing on behalf of the appellants that the appellants never denied that the factory ''Horibal Sugar Candy '' was belonging to appellants Biswanath and Basudam and appellant Gour Chandra Dutta was the Manager of the factory. It is also not denied that 130 quintals and 50 kgs. of sugar was seized from that factory on 12.9.1988 by DEB personnel. The appellant Biswanath and Basudam had a valid license in dealing with thousand quintal of sugar. They had been maintaining proper accounts of the sugar procured by them. It is, Mr. Mukherjee contended, the specific case of the appellants that the sugar seized was supplied by different customers for the purpose of making ''Batasa '' and ''candy ''. That fact had well been reflected in exhibits B and C. Mr. Mukherjee contended that chalan, ledger, Zabdakhata (exhibit B and exhibit C) established the plea taken by the appellants in course of trial besides the oral evidence of the 11 defense witnesses. But, the learned Trial Court ignored the entire case of appellant on filmsy grounds. The judgement, Mr. Mukherjee contended is not based on proper appreciation of evidence, and, therefore, is liable to be set aside.;