ANJAN BOSE Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal a Judgment dated 28.01.1988 passed by learned Sessions Judge (Essential Commodities Act, 1955), 24 -Parganas at Alipore in Special Case No. 8(5)1986 has been challenged. The Hon'ble Special Court found the appellant, Anjan Bose guilty of offence under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for violating the provisions of paragraph 4 of West Bengal Rationing Order, 1964 and paragraph 6 of West Bengal Food Stuff Anti -Hoarding Order, 1966 and convicting him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/ -, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for fifteen more days. On 02.05.1986, at 13.15 hours G.C. Dutta, S.I., D.E.O. Behala together with other police officers found one Matador Van being No. W.M.V. 709 in front of a medical store by the side of Diamond Harbour Road. The Matador Van was loaded with 25 bags of boil rice weighing 20 quintals 90 Kg. of rice. None was found in the Truck. None has claimed ownership of the rice bags. Accordingly, the officer seized the rice and Matador Van and lodged one F.I.R. which was registered as Behala Police Station Case No. 9 dated 02.05.1986. In course of investigation, the driver of the Matador Van, i.e. the appellant herein and one Asish Sarkar were arrested. Charge -sheet was filed against them and they faced the trial as they pleaded not guilty to the charge framed by the learned Special Judge under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of Act -X -55.

(2.) LEARNED Trial Court upon consideration of the evidence on record acquitted Asish Sarkar but found this appellant guilty of offence charged with and passed the order impugned.

(3.) HEARD Mr. Arnab Chatterjee, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State of West Bengal. He submitted that the garage register was seized but could not be placed before the Court and admitted into evidence for the reason that the I.O. of the case died. He further contended that there was nothing on record to disbelieve the statement of Joynal Abedin, the P.W. 3. Therefore, he contended, that the Judgment impugned is not required to be interfered with.