JAIN BHANDAR Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal the judgement of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 28/8/1986 as passed by the learned Judge, Special Court (E.C Act) Purulia in Trial No.28/85 corresponding to D.E.B.G.R Case No.22/85 has been impugned. By the impugned judgement the said trial court found accused Hiralal Jain (appellant no.2 herein) and accused Bimal Jain (appellant no.3 herein) guilty under Sec. 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act , 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the said 'Act' in short) read with paragraph 3(2) of the West Bengal Declaration of Stocks and Prices of the Essential Commodities Order, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the said 'Order of 1977' in short) and paragraph 3(a) read with paragraph 2(c) of the West Bengal Sugar Dealers Licensing Order, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Order of 1980'). The said trial court thus sentenced the accused Hiralal Jain to suffer R.I for three months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000.00 i.d to suffer R.I for 15 days more for the offence committed by him under Sec. 7(1)(a)(ii) of the said Act of 1955 read with paragraph 3(2) of the said Order of 1977. The convict Hiralal Jain is further sentenced to suffer R.I for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000.00 i.d. to suffer R.I for 15 days more for the offence committed by him under Sec. 7(1)(a) (ii) of the said Act of 1955 read with paragraph 3 (a) and paragraph 2(c) of the said Order of 1980. The said trial court also sentenced convict Bimal Jain to suffer R.I for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000.00 i.d to suffer further R.I for 15 days for the offence committed by him under Sec. 7(1)(a)(ii) of the said Act of 1955 read with paragraph 3(2) of the said Order of 1977. The convict Bimal Jain is further sentenced to suffer R.I for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.3000.00 i.d. to suffer R.I for three months more under Sec. 7(1)(a) (ii) of the said Act of 1955 read with paragraph 3 (a) and paragraph 2(c) of the said Order of 1980.

(2.) Both the convicts felt aggrieved and thus preferred the instant appeal. It is pertinent to mention herein that during the pendency of the appeal the appellant no.2 Hiralal Jain died and thus the instant appeal stood abetted as far as the appellant no.2, Hiralal Jain is concerned.

(3.) It is equally pertinent to mention herein that since the appellant Bimal Jain and/or his learned advocate did not turn up at the time of call, administrative notice was issued to the appellant Bimal Jain and despite service of such administrative notice, the said appellant had chosen not to appear and thus this Court by its order dtd. 14/6/2024 appointed Ms. Monami Mukherjee, learned amicus curiae to represent the appellant.