Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J. - (1.) This appeal arose out of a judgement and order dated 30th April, 1984 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Burdwan in T.R. No. 5 1983, arising out of Kalna P.S. Case no.5 dated 4th November, 1982 convicting the appellants under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months each. The seized rice and the boat be forfeited to the State.
(2.) The prosecution case in short is that on 4th November, 1982 at about 10.30 hours the accused persons were found to carry 23 bags of boiled rice owing 1850 kgs. 500 gms. by a boat from Kalna Thane Ghat in the district of Nadia on the other side of the Ganges. The Police intercepted the boat and demanded the documents for carrying the said rice, but the accused persons failed to produce any documents or papers and as such the Police arrested them and seized the rice and boat. After seizing, the same was given to zimma to some other persons. Accordingly, a case, being Kalna P.S. Case no. 4 dated 4th November, 1982, was started and after investigation the Police submitted charge-sheet against the accused/appellants for violation of the provisions of paragraph 3(2)(a) of the West Bengal Rice and Paddy (Licensing and Control) Order, 1967. Accordingly, the accused/appellants faced trial and pleaded not guilty and thereafter, upon taking evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the defence witnesses, the learned Judge tried the case.
(3.) Learned advocate for the appellants has submitted that the appellants were the owners of agricultural land and also they were the bargadars. They were carrying their own products, i.e. 23 bags of boiled rice and they accumulated their earning of the year for selling the rice in the nearby market and they did not purchase the same for business purpose. He has further submitted that the learned Judge ought to have considered that the appellants were neither hordes nor smugglers but they were cultivators and possessed land on both sides of the Ganges. He has further submitted that the prosecution witnesses could not prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt and falsely implicated the accused/appellants. Lastly, he has submitted that the accused/appellants were not the owners of the vehicle, they hired the vehicle for carrying the rice and before confiscation of the vehicle no notice was given to the owner of the vehicle and as such, the impugned judgement and order passed by the learned Judge is illegal and without jurisdiction. He has prayed for setting aside the impugned judgement and order dated 30th April, 1984.;