HARADHAN JANA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is directed against the judgement and order dated 08.12.1986 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, E.C. Act of Howrah, in SCT 67/85 convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for violation of paragraph 12(1) of the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as "the Order of 1968") and sentencing him to suffer simple imprisonment for four months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for ten days more. Prosecution case, as alleged, against the appellant is to the effect that PW 1 along with others inspected the kerosene oil-cum-grocery shop of the appellant and found that the latter was dealing in essential commodity, namely, Kerosene oil. PW 1 wanted to see books of accounts and other documents relating to suchbusiness of kerosene oil and served a notice upon the appellant. Pursuant thereto, the appellant produce sale register, stock register, log book, purchase cash memos. On perusal of sale register it was found that the same was no written upto date. On physical verification there was 440 liters kerosene oil and a shortage of 110 liters of kerosene oil was detected on comparison of physical verification with the entries in the stock register. PW 1 arrested the appellant and granted him bail on PR bond as he was ill. PW 1 seized licence, purchase cash memo, stock register, sale register, physical stock of kerosene oil from the shop of the appellant. He prepared a seizure list and kept the seizure articles in the Zimba of the appellant. PW 1 lodged complaint resulting in registration of Howrah P.S. Case No. 18 dated 14.06.1985 under section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act against the appellant.

(2.) West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968. Substance of accusation was read out and explained to the appellant. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

(3.) Mr. Bagchi, learned amicus curiae submitted that although it appears there was a shortfall of 110 liters of kerosene oil, prosecution witnesses deposed that there was a shortfall of 90 liters. He further submitted that the appellant was suffering from jaundice and as a result he could not run the shop himself and had assigned such duty to one Bapi. Hence, he had no mens rea in committing the offence. He prayed for acquittal of the appellant. Mr. Banerjee, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that a shortfall to the tune of 110 liters of kerosene oil was detected upon comparing physical quantity of kerosene oil in the shop with the entries made in the stock register. He submitted that the version of remaining of kerosene oil business by one Bapi is highly unreliable and has not been established by way of evidence. He prayed for dismissal of the appeal.