GANGA SHAW Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment and order dated 28.10.1987 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court (E.C. Act), Barasat, North 24 Parganas in Special Case No. 92 of 1986 convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for violating paragraph 4, 12 and 11(2) of the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the order of 1968 ) and sentencing him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/ - in default, he shall suffer Rigorous Imprisonment six months more has been assailed. The prosecution case, as alleged, against the appellant is that on 02.10.1986 at about 4:30 P.M. Sri T. P. Ghosh (PW -6) an officer of enforcement branch along with others inspected the grocery shop of the appellant. It had alleged that at the time of checking the appellant was found selling kerosene oil from his shop. On demand, the appellant failed to produce any licence or permit for selling kerosene oil. From the shop one mouth open tin containing ten litres of kerosene oil, one polythen jar containing ten litres of kerosene oil and a measuring can of one litre and another of half litre were seized under a seizure list. The raiding party also raided and recovered 115 litres of kerosene oil in seven containers from his house. As the appellant failed to produce any licence or permit for keeping in his possession such huge quantity of kerosene oil, the said 115 litres of kerosene oil was also seized under a seizure list. The appellant was arrested and subsequently enlarged on bail.

(2.) ON the basis of written complaint lodged by PW -6 Belghoria Police Station Case No. 4 dated 02.10.1986 under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 was registered against the appellant. In conclusion of investigation, chargesheet was submitted under section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Substance of accusation was read over and explained to the appellant. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

(3.) IN course of trial, prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. The defence of the appellant was one of innocence and false implications.