SITAL MAHATO Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 31.10.1984 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Durgapur, convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under section 7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to Act, 1955) for violation of para 4 of the West Bengal kerosene Control Order, 1968(hereinafter referred to as Order of 1968) and para 3 (2) of the West Bengal Declaration of Stock and Prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1977 (hereinafter referred to Order of 1977) and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/ - in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months more.

(2.) The prosecution case as alleged against the appellant is to the effect that on 13.03.1984 one Mihir Ranjan Dutta( PW1), Officer of New Township P.S. (PW1) along with others was on night patrol duty after receiving secret information that the appellant had stored huge quantity of kerosene oil in front of his residence at Surya Sen Pally within Newtownship P.S. and was selling the same without any licence and authority. They reached the place of occurrence and found 5/6 persons run away upon seeing police jeep. They were taken by one Arun Kumar Goswami( PW4) and Basudeb Dhara(PW5 ) in front of 'Jhupri' of the appellant where he was found present. They found 15 barrels of kerosene oil and three empty barrels and two small tins lying in front of 'Jhupri'. The appellant claimed the barrels of kerosene as well as empty barrels as his own. He failed to produce licence. Each barrel contained approximately 200 liters of keroene oil, in all 30000 liters of kerosene oil. PW1 arrested the appellant and seized the barrels containing kerosene oil including empty barrels and two small tins under a seizure list. On the basis of written complaint of PW1, Mihir Ranjan Dutta, Newtownship P.S. Case No.7 (3) 84 under section 7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 was registered for investigation against the appellant. In conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant under section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Act, 1955 for violating paragraph 4 of the Order of 1968 and paragraph 3(2) of the Order of 1977. The appellant pleaded 'not guilty' and the claimed to be tried.

(3.) In course of trial, prosecution examined as many as 6 witnesses to prove its case and exhibited number of documents. The defence of the appellant is one of the innocence and false implication. The appellant however, did not examine any witness in support of his defence. In conclusion of trial, the trial court convicted the appellant for commission of offence punishable under section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Act, 1955 for violating paragraph 4 of the Order, 1968 and paragraph 3(2) of the Order, 1977 and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500 in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months more. Being aggrieved by such order and judgment of conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal.