PALASH SAHA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal has been preferred against a Judgment and Order passed by the Learned Special Court EC Act, Malda in DEBGR Case No. 5 of 1996 arising out of Habibpur Police Station Case No. 34 of 1996 dated March 24, 1996 convicting the appellants u/s 7(1) (a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act 1955 and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year each and to pay a Fine of Rs.2000.00 each in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 2 months.

(2.) The brief fact of the prosecution case is that on 24/3/1996 in between 5 hours and 7 hours acting of source information one S.I. of DEO as Habibpur P.S along with force under the supervision of Superintendent of Police held a raid in the house of appellant Palash Saha and apprehended him. After being interrogated he confessed that he collected 360 quintals of rice for smuggling; the rice to Bangladesh and for this purpose he had kept those rice in the house of Basudeb Tarafder (another appellant) of Uttar Purba Kendua. Thereafter the raiding party went to the house of Basudeb Tarafder where Palash Saha showed the rice bags; on counting 360 bags of rice of 360 quintals were found. On interrogation Basudeb admitted that they kept the rice for smuggling the same to Bangaldesh in lieu of money. On demand they failed to produce any valid licence or any valid papers for the search of rice. Thus they were apprehended and the case was started. The investigation of the police was ended in charge sheet. The accused persons were examined u/s 251 of Cr.P.C. and both of them pleaded for guilty. Thereafter the trial started before the Learned Special Judge and during the trial total 12 witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution but the defence produced no witness. After hearing the PWs and after hearing the arguments of defence and after considering the materials on record Learned Special Judge, passed the impugned Order.

(3.) Learned Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted before this court that Learned Special Judge has completely failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of this case and though there are no substantive facts on record, but the appellant was convicted which is bad in law. He further submitted that the alleged bag of rice was not seized from the house of Basudeb but was seized from the P.W. D Roads. The evidences of PWs and the independent witnesses has stated the fact before the Learned Special Court but the Learned Special Judge did not considered their depositions and passed an erroneous order. He further argued that the statement of appellant Palash Saha cannot be regarded as a statement u/s 27 of Evidence Act thus on the basis of which the Order of conviction is pulpably illegal. He further argued that the investigation conducted by the investigating agency is perfunctory one and only the table work. No reliance can be placed upon such investigation. It is further case of the appellant that no document was produced by the prosecution to show that the house wherefrom the alleged rice was seized is belong to the appellant Basudeb Tarafder thus the impugned Judgment is baseless.