Shib Sadhan Sadhu, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 07.08.1985 passed by the Judge, Special Court under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (henceforth "the Act"), Midnapore in D.E.B. G.R. Case No. 67 of 1983. By the impugned judgment, the appellant Manindra Nath Baram has been convicted under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Act and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 15 days and to pay a fine of Rs. 750/ -, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days.
(2.) THE case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under: On 09.10.1983 between 14.00 hours and 15.15 hours Sub -Inspector of Police Sankar Prasad Sen, D.E.O., Kharagpur under supervision of the superior Police Officers inspected the wholesale cum retail shop of the appellant under the name and style M/s. Radha Mohan Masala Bhandar at Gholai under P.S. Debra and found that the appellant was conducting business exposing mustard oil, refined rapeseed oil, pulses, sugar etc. The stock cum -rate -board displayed the stock of the aforesaid essential commodities along with other articles as on 09.10.83. On demand, the appellant produced dealer's licence, cash memo and stock books. The stock book in respect of the mustard oil and rapeseed oil disclosed only the opening stock as on 08.10.83. Physical verification of the actual stock disclosed excess quantity of mustard oil to the extent of 378 kgs and 900 gms. and excess of refined rapeseed oil to the extent of 188 kg in comparison with the rate -cum -stock -board. Hence the appellant violated the provisions of Section 3(2) of West Bengal Declaration of Stock and Price of Essential Commodities Order, 1977 and the provisions of Paragraph 12(C) of the West Bengal Pulses, Edible Oil seeds and Edible oils (Dealer's licensing). Order, 1978. So the said Sub -Inspector seized the entire stock for mustard oil, refined rapeseed oil, licence, cash memo, stock books, stock -cum -rate -board under a seizure list duly attested by the witnesses and left those in the jimma of the appellant under a jimmanama. The appellant was arrested and thereafter they returned to Debra P.S. where the said Sub -Inspector Sankar Prasad Sen lodged a written complaint on the basis of which Debra P.S. Case No. 6 dated 09.10.83 under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Act was registered. That case was investigated into by the complainant Sub -Inspector Sankar Prasad Sen and after completion of investigation, he submitted charge sheet under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Act against the appellant. Thereafter, the case was placed for trial before the Learned Judge, Special Court (E.C. Act) Midnapore, who examined the accused/appellant under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and after conclusion of the trial, held the appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced him as mentioned above.
(3.) PROSECUTION examined 4 witnesses in order to prove the accusation brought against the appellant. The documents admitted into evidence on behalf of the prosecution e.g. seizure list; formal F.I.R.; Jimmanama and the written complaint have been marked Exts. 1, 2, 3 & 4 respectively and the signatures of the witnesses appearing on those documents were marked accordingly. On the other hand, the appellant did not adduce any evidence.;