BIPROARSHI GUHA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant Bagla Ranjan Samanta has been convicted under section 7 (1) (a) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act for alleged violation of conditions 5 (a)/6 and 7 (a)/7 (b) of the License issued under the provisions of paragraph 6 (2) read with Section 12 of the West Bengal Kerosene Control order, 1968 and under Section 3 (2) of the West Bengal Declaration of Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1977 as well as under Section 8 of the Anti Profiteering Act, 1958 and sentenced thereunder to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month for his conviction under section 7 (1) (a) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- for his conviction under Section 8 of the Anti Profiteering Act, 1958, in default rigorous imprisonment for one month respectively, whereas, the appellant Desbandhu samanta was convicted under Section 7 (1) (a) (ii) read with Section 8 of the essential Commodities Act, 1955 for alleged violation of conditions of 5 (a), 6 and 7 (a)/7 (b) of the License issued under the Provisions of Paragraph 6 (2) read with Section 12 of the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968 and under Section 3 (2) of the West Bengal Declaration of Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1977 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default rigorous imprisonment for one month on each count of charge. Hence, this appeal.

(2.) THE prosecution case against the appellants are as follows : -

(3.) IT appears from the records of examination of the appellants under section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the substance of the accusation against them are as follows :