JOYMALYA BAGCHI, J. - (1.) THE appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.03.1985 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, E.C. Act, Darjeeling in Special Court Case No. 10 of 1983 convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act for violation of paragraph 3(2) of West Bengal Declaration of Stock and Prices of Essential Commodities Order 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the Order of 1977) and to suffer simple imprisonment till rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ -only, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for 50 days.
(2.) PROSECUTION case, as alleged, against the appellant is to the effect that on 29.04.1983 PW 6 (D.B. Chettri), Inspector of Police attached to DEB along with others visited and inspected the shop of the appellant situated at Tharbu T.E. within P.S. Mirik. They found that the appellant was dealing in rice but did not display stock -cum -rate list in Form B as required paragraph 3(2) of the Order of 1977 in a conspicuous place of business. List which was displayed was written up to 29.04.1984 showing opening balance of rice as 16 quintals 10 kgs. Whereas stock register showed opening balance of rice of 19 quintals 90 kgs. on 29.04.1983. On physical verification PW 6 found 21 quintals 50 kgs. rice in the shop. Stock of rise, stock register and stock -cum -rate list were seized under a seizure list in presence of the witnesses. The appellant was arrested and on the basis of written complaint of PW 6 first information report was registered as Mirik P.S. Case No. 3/5 dated 29.04.1983 under section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act for violation of paragraph
(3.) (2) of the Order of 1977 and 5(a) and 18(1) of the West Bengal Rice and Paddy Licence and Control Order, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as Order of 1967). 3.In conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant Substance of accusation was read over to the appellant. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In course of trial, prosecution examined as many as 6 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents.;