- (1.) The appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 20.10.1987 passed by Learned Judge, Special Court, Hooghly, under Essential Commodities Act, in Case No. 105 of 1985 convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 7(i)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act for violation of the provisions of Paragraphs 3(2) of West Bengal Declaration of Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as order of 1977) and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four months and to pay a fine of Rupees Rs.1000/- in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one months more. Prosecution case as alleged against the appellant is to the effect that on 13.7.1987 the police officers attached to District Enforcement Branch, Hooghly had inspected the grocery shop of the appellant at Village Dhalarbagan under P.S. Dadpur. The appellant was found present and attending to the customers.
(2.) The raiding officers found large quantities of different essential commodities in the shop but on demand the appellant failed to produce any stock register, sale register and cash memo etc. One stock-cum-rate board was found in the said shop but on that rate board no stock and price of essential commodities were written. Accordingly, the officers seized the essential commodities found in the shop including the stock board, licence and arrested the appellant. First information was registered and upon investigation charge-sheet was filed under Section 7(i)(a)(ii) for violation of Paragraph 3(2) of the order of 1977. Substance of accusation was read over and explained to the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In the course of trial, 4 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. The defence of the appellant was one of innocence and false implication. It was the specific defence of the appellant that stock and the prices of the essential commodities were written in the stock-cum-rate board displayed in his shop. In conclusion of trial, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforesaid. Mr. Datta, learned counsel is requested to appear as amicus curiae. Mr. Datta submits that there is no independent witness to the search and seizure. There is also no chart of the stock-cum-rate list was contemporaneously prepared in the seizure list showing that the stock-cumrate board was blank. He accordingly, prays for acquittal. Ms. Sinha, learned counsel on behalf of the State sumits that the evidence of the witnesses clearly show that there was no writing on the stockcum-rate board and, accordingly, conviction does not call for interference. I have perused the evidence on record. P.W.4, S.I. Md. Nasrullah, was the leader of the raiding party. He deposed that he is a S.I. of police who was attached to D.E.B., Hooghly. On 13.7.1985 he raided the grocery shop of the appellant. The appellant was present in the shop. He was carrying on his business. He demanded to see stock and rate board, stock register, sale register and cash memo book. The appellant failed to produce stock register, sale register and cash memo book. The stock and rate board was available in the shop but quantities and prices of essential commodities were not written on that board. He seized the essential commodities under a seizure list in the presence of witnesses. He proved the seizure list (Ext.1/1). He gave the seized commodities in the zimmanama to one Ranjit Saha except the stock board and licence. He wrote the original zimmanama in carbon process. Ranjit Saha signed on zimmanama. Thereafter he arrested the appellant and lodged a written complain at Dadpur P.S. He proved the written complain (Ext.3). He submitted the original seizure list, original zimmanama, seized trade licence and stock and rate board at Thana. In cross-examination, he stated that he collected the name of one customer who had been made a witness but he did not collect names of other customers. One Mritunjoy Ghosal signed on the seizure list. He denied that quantities and prices were properly written on the board. He, however, admitted that he did not wrap the board properly. P.W.1, Kalipada Biswas, was the watch constable who was attached to D.E.B., Hooghly. He accompanied the officer Md. Nasrullah at the shop of the appellant. They checked the shop and found a board but on that board there was no writing of quantities and prices of articles. Daroga Babu seized commodities under a seizure list. Appellant was present in the shop. He signed on the seizure list. He proved his signature on the seizure list (Ext.1). In crossexamination, he deposed that there were customers when they visited the shop. Names of customers were not taken. Seizure list took place in presence of public witnesses. He signed on the seizure list. On that date board was seized. P.W.2, A.S.I. Anjan Kumar Roy, was the police officer who received the written complaint and drew up formal F.I.R. (Ext.2). He also received one board, one licence, original zimmanama and original seizure list. On recall, he exhibited the board (Mat. Ext.I) and the token for licence (Mat. Ext.II). In crossexamination, he stated that this board he kept it at Malkahana. He could not say the quantities were written by chalk on the board or not.
(3.) From the evidence on record, it appears that a raid was conducted on the grocery shop of the appellant on 13.7.1985. It is the version of P.W.1, 2 and 4 that although there was a stock-cum-rate board but the quantities and the prices of the essential commodities were not written thereon. The board was seized under a seizure list and kept in the custody of P.W. 2 who was attached to Pandua P.S. From the perusal of the seizure list, Ext. 1/2, I find that there is no endorsement as to whether the board seized was a blank one or not. That apart, no contemporaneous copy of the stock-cum-rate board was made in the seizure list. It has also been admitted that the board was not properly wrapped. No public witness was also examined in the instant case, although it is admitted that the seizure list took place in the presence of various customers.;