- (1.) In this appeal the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Learned Special Court, Hooghly on the 30th of January, 1990 in Special Case No. 71 of 1988 convicting the appellant-accused under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short the 1955 Act) is under challenge. By the judgment and order impugned the Learned Special Court was pleased to find the appellant guilty of violation of paragraph 3(2) of the West Bengal Declaration of Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1977 (for short the 1977 Order) as well as paragraphs 4 and 7 of the West Bengal Rationing Order, 1964 (for short the 1964 Order) and also of violation of Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the 1955 Act.
(2.) The Learned Special Court sentenced the appellant to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer a further rigorous imprisonment of two months. Ms. Sreeparna Das, Learned Advocate who was appointed as Amicus Curiae by this Court, appears and submits that the case against the appellant commenced on the basis of a First Information Report (for short FIR) lodged by a complaint by one Md. Nasirullah, also the PW1, then posted as SI, DEB, Hooghly.
(3.) According to the complaint which was lodged on 23rd February, 1988, PW1 along with force comprising other personnel held a raid at the grocery shop of the appellant on 23rd February, 1988. During the raid PW1 found several essential commodities kept in the shop for sale and customers were also purchasing such commodities. The man in the shop room, one Sri Surendra Prasad, who was attending to the customers, failed to produce trade licence, stock register, sales register, cash memo, stock and rate board in support of running the said grocery shop. The said Surendra Prasad, PW3, who was later declared hostile, merely produced an invalid trade licence at the time of the raid. PW1 also found that boiled rice was kept in the said shop room for sale. On being asked to produce a valid permit for selling boiled rice in a statutory rationing area, PW3 failed to produce the same. Accordingly, PW1 initiated the case under the relevant provisions of the three statutory enactments being the 1955 Act, the 1964 Order and the 1977 Order. PW1 claims to have prepared a seizure list duly attested by local witnesses. The seizure list, inter alia, mentions 5 kgs. of mustard oil, one quintal of boiled rice, one quintal 80 kgs. flour, 50 kgs. 'musur dal' and 40 kgs. of 'arhar dal'. In terms of the complaint the FIR was recorded on the same date. Ms. Das, Learned Amicus Curiae submits that although in the written complaint PW1 refers to raid at the grocery shop of the appellant with a force, none of the members of the force were ever examined. It is also not clear as to what impelled the PW1 to hold the raid as well as his authority to hold such raid.;