GURUPADA PAUL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Sec. 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the appellant against an order of conviction under Sec. 7 (i)(a)(ii) of the Acts of 1955, on the pretext of the contravention of the West Bengal, rice and paddy (licensing, and control) 1967 and sentences to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months to be Rs.300 passed by the Learned Judge, Special Court at Mala on 15/1/1992, in Special Case no. 24 of 1990.

(2.) The prosecution case in a nut shell is that on 12/7/1990 in between 1 P.M. and 3 P.M. , S.I M.N. Chatterjee , D.E.O Sadar Malda along with S.I, K.S Das, D.E.O, Gazole ,Constable S. Pathak apprehended a mini truck no. WGR 2467, carrying 62 bags of paddy weighing 35 quintals at Kaluadighi Bridge. Dilip Kumar Pal was the driver and accused Gurupada Pal was the other occupant of the truck. According to their claim, the aforesaid quantity of paddy was of them and they were carrying the same for the business, but on demand accused Gurupada failed to produce any license for transporting paddy for such business. After that Gurpada was arrested and the articles were seized and complaint was lodged at Malda Police Station and accordingly D.G.R case No. 44 of 1990 under Sec. 7(1)(a) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act was started by the police. On completion of investigation, the charge sheet submitted by the I.O against the accused./appellant for violation of para 3(i) of the West Bengal, Rice and Paddy(license and control) prohibition of unauthorised sale order, 1967 and for committing the offence punishable under Act X of 1955, Sec. 8 of the said Act . On trial, five witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and learned Special Court considering the evidences adduced by the accused person /appellant, under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure passed the order of conviction against each of the convict. Being aggrieved, thereby this appeal has been filed by the appellant Gurupada Paul.

(3.) The learned Amicus Curiae appointed in this case by this Court argued that the Learned Special Judge did not consider the important facts like the weight of the seized paddy of 35 quintal and failed to consider the serious discrepancies in the evidences regarding the place of seizure of paddy. There was a delay in filing the first information report which was not explained but this fact was also not considered by the Learned Special Court. It was further argued that the seizure list was defective and no seal or label was there on the seized Article. Accordingly prayed for a setting aside the order of conviction.