Ishan Chandra Das, J. - (1.) Assailing the judgment and order of conviction dated 29.12.1990 passed by learned Judge, Special Court (under the E.C. Act) Malda in D.G.R. Case No. 20/1988 (Special Court Case No. 17/1988), the present appeal has been preferred where learned trial Court found the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Sec. 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act (Act X of 1955) 1955 for violation of the Rule 18 of West Bengal Rice and Paddy (Licensing and Control) order, 1967 and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/ - in default to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one month more.
(2.) Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution was that on 14.07.1988 at 11.30 a.m. following a secret information about the illegal storage of huge quantity of paddy at the godown of the appellant at Tulsihatta, S.I. P.T. Bhutia, D.E.O. Harishchandrapur P.S. Camp being accompanied by some police officers and members of the force, held raid in the said godown and recovered 88 bags of paddy weighing 66 quintals from the godown. The appellant who was found in the godown on their demand produced certain blank documents including a blank letter of authority of M/s. Puratanhat Rice Mill, Nibujinagar (Burdwan), signed by one Nagarmal Sarma, proprietor of the said Rice Mill and stated that he had purchased and stored paddy being employed by the said Rice Mill for the Rice Mill at Burdwan. The appellant failed to produce any license or authority for storing the paddy at his godown, though stock or price board was displayed at the godown. The appellant was allegedly found to have contravened the Rule 18 of West Bengal Rice and Paddy (Licensing and Control) order, 1967, being punishable under Sec. 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Act X of 1955. The police officer (S.I. P.T. Bhutia) holding such raid instantly seized such paddy and documents produced before him on preparation of a Seizure List in presence of the local witnesses, apprehended the appellant therefrom, lodged the written complaint before the police station against the appellant as well as the Proprietor Nagarmal Sarma and he himself took up investigation of this case, prayed before the competent authority for confiscation of the property and on completion of investigation he submitted charge -sheet against the appellant only, though he prayed for discharge of other accused persons including said Nagarmal Sarma. Ultimately the charge -sheet was accepted, cognizance was taken against the appellant for allegedly committing the offence and after conclusion of trial, on examination of 8 witnesses (6 witnesses for the prosecution and 2 for the defence) learned trial Court found the appellant guilty of the offence of violation of paragraph 18 of the West Bengal Rice and Paddy (Licensing and Control) order, 1967 and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/ - in default to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one month (for one count of offence), punishable under Sec. 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act of 1955, as noted earlier.
(3.) Questing the legality and Propriety of the order of conviction, the present appeal has been preferred mainly on the following grounds: - - "(1) The appellant was seriously prejudiced as the PW -5 who was the F.I.R. maker investigated the case and cognizance was taken on the basis of charge -sheet submitted by him. (2) Learned trial Court failed to appreciate that the appellant having the letter issued by Nagarmal Sharma, Proprietor of M/S. Puratanhat Rice Mill (in his possession) for the purpose of mobile purchase of paddy from different places of the district (Malda) on behalf of the said Rice Mill for despatching the same to the said Mill at Burdwan. (3) Learned trial Court was erroneous in holding that the appellant was dealing in purchase and storage of paddy as a dealer or a registered dealer so as to bring him within the ambit of paragraph 18 of the West Bengal Rice & Paddy (Licensing & Control) order, 1967 where he was required to maintain accounts of purchase and storage of paddy. (4) Since the appellant did not act independently as a dealer, learned trial Judge should not have found the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Sec. 7(1)(a)(ii) of the E.C. Act for the alleged violation of Paragraph 18 of the order of 1967. (5) The finding of learned trial Court being based on erroneous concept of l aw, the same is bad, illegal and the order of conviction is liable to be set aside.";