- (1.) The appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 31.10.1984 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Durgapur, convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under section 7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to Act, 1955) for violation of para 4 of the West Bengal kerosene Control Order, 1968(hereinafter referred to as Order of 1968) and para 3 (2) of the West Bengal Declaration of Stock and Prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1977 (hereinafter referred to Order of 1977) and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/ - in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months more.
(2.) The prosecution case as alleged against the appellant is to the effect that on 13.03.1984 one Mihir Ranjan Dutta( PW1), Officer of New Township P.S. (PW1) along with others was on night patrol duty after receiving secret information that the appellant had stored huge quantity of kerosene oil in front of his residence at Surya Sen Pally within Newtownship P.S. and was selling the same without any licence and authority. They reached the place of occurrence and found 5/6 persons run away upon seeing police jeep. They were taken by one Arun Kumar Goswami( PW4) and Basudeb Dhara(PW5 ) in front of 'Jhupri' of the appellant where he was found present. They found 15 barrels of kerosene oil and three empty barrels and two small tins lying in front of 'Jhupri'. The appellant claimed the barrels of kerosene as well as empty barrels as his own. He failed to produce licence. Each barrel contained approximately 200 liters of keroene oil, in all 30000 liters of kerosene oil. PW1 arrested the appellant and seized the barrels containing kerosene oil including empty barrels and two small tins under a seizure list. On the basis of written complaint of PW1, Mihir Ranjan Dutta, Newtownship P.S. Case No.7 (3) 84 under section 7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 was registered for investigation against the appellant. In conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant under section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Act, 1955 for violating paragraph 4 of the Order of 1968 and paragraph 3(2) of the Order of 1977. The appellant pleaded 'not guilty' and the claimed to be tried.
(3.) In course of trial, prosecution examined as many as 6 witnesses to prove its case and exhibited number of documents. The defence of the appellant is one of the innocence and false implication. The appellant however, did not examine any witness in support of his defence. In conclusion of trial, the trial court convicted the appellant for commission of offence punishable under section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Act, 1955 for violating paragraph 4 of the Order, 1968 and paragraph 3(2) of the Order, 1977 and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500 in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months more. Being aggrieved by such order and judgment of conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal. Mrs. Ghosh Mondal, learned counsel appearing as amicus curiae submitted that it has come from the evidence of PW4 that the 'Jhupri' is owned by one Bulu Bhattacharjee who was neither interrogated nor produced in court as witness. She further submitted that there was no evidence on record to say that the appellant was dealing with kerosene oil. Accordingly, she prayed for acquittal of the appellant. Mr. Banerjee, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the appellant stored huge quantity of kerosene oil and was dealing with kerosene oil from the 'jhupri' In view of overwhelming evidence on record, order of conviction and sentence did not call for interference. PW1 defacto -complainant has stated that he along with others, namely, Constable Rabindra Nath Chakrabarty PW2, Bimal Ghosh PW3 and others held raid after PW4 and PW5 pointed out the place where huge quantity of kerosene oil was stored. When they reached the place, 5/6 persons ran away with some articles. They found the appellant was inside the 'Jhupri'. They found 15 barrels of kerosene oil each containing 200 liters of kerosene oil, three empty barrels and two small tins. Appellant could not produce any document in support thereof. He also could not produce any stock and price board for carrying on business in kerosene oil. The appellant was arrested and 15 barrels of kerosene oil, three empty barrels and two small tins were seized under seizure list. Complaint was lodged at New Township Police Station which was treat as First Information Report. He proved First Information Report as exhibit 1 and seizure list as exhibit 2 in the instant case.;