NUR ISLAM MONDAL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and order dtd. 17/6/1989 passed by the Learned Judge, Special Court, E.C. Act Nadia, Krishnanagar in E.C. case No. 6 of 1989 convicting the present appellants under Sec. 7(1) (a)(ii) of E. C. Act for violation of the provisions of para 12(2) of the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order 1968 sentencing the appellants to suffer R.I. for one year each and to pay fine of Rs.2,000.00 each in default to suffer further R.I. for six months each.

(2.) The brief fact of the prosecution case is that on 7/2/1989 in between 10.30 A.M. to 11.30 A.M. the complainant(D.E.B), Karimpur, along with others went and inspected the Kerosene Oil Shop of the appellants. The appellant no. 1 namely, Nur Islam was the dealer of the Kerosene Oil and the appellant no.2, namely, Dulal Biswas was an employee of the shop. At the time of inspection the appellant no.2 Dulal Biswas was present in the shop. On physical verification 38 barrels in full Kerosene Oil were found in the godown of the accused. Appellant no.2 could not produce any licence for dealing with Kerosene Oil but appellant no.1 produced one purchase Cash Memo of Kerosene Oil and the Registers for running the business. On scrutiny of the log book, it was found that on 7/2/1989, 40 barrels of Kerosene Oil was received by the appellant but no entry was made in the stock registrar to that effect. On physical verification, it was further revealed that 2 barrels of Kerosene Oil was found short to which the accused/appellant no.2 Dulal Biswas failed to give any satisfactory account. No rate-cum-stock Board was also found displayed in the shop of the appellants. Accordingly, the appellant no.2 was arrested and the Kerosene Oil found in the godown of the appellant was seized under a seizure list. After investigation charge sheet was submitted against the appellants under Sec. 7(1)(a)(ii) of the E. C. Act for violation of para 4,6 and 12(2) of kerosene Control Order, 1968. During the course of the trial 4(four) P.Ws were examined. Both the appellants were appeared before the learned Special court and their examination was recorded under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After hearing the prosecution and defence learned Special Judge passed the impugned order. Hence this appeal.

(3.) Learned advocate for the appellants submitted before this Court that the impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge is illegal and perverse in the eye of law. He further submitted before this Court that the learned Special Judge has filed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of this case and came to an erroneous finding. The further pointed out that the judgment on the basis of the prosecution witnesses is actually out of legal parlance.