The court emphasized the importance of considering all testimonies, including those of independent witnesses, and the need to definitively establish possession of incriminating articles in cases of alleged contravention of essential commodities laws.

Abhijit Sinha, J.

1. This appeal at the instance of the sole appellant Chhabila Sah is directed against the judgment and order dated 5th March, 1993 passed by Sri Damodar Prasad, the then Special Judge (E. C. Act Cases) East Champaran at Motihari whereby he has found the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as the "E.C. Act") for contravention of the provisions of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the "Unification Order") and had sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that one, Girindra Narain Thakur, District Supply Officer, Motihari gave his written report to the Officer Incharge Town P.S. Motihari on 20-9-1990, inter alia, stating that at about 4.45 p.m. that day he had raided the shop of stove repairing of the appellant herein situated at Balua Bazar Motihari along with Sub-Inspector Mithila Nand Upadhayay and Sidheshwar Prasad, Supply Inspector, and in course thereof allegedly seized 14 tins of Kerosene oil each containing 16 litres thereby totalling 225 litres in all, two measurement of aluminium of one litre, two measurement of aluminium of half litre, one measurement of 200 grams, two measurements of 100 grams and one measurement of 50 grams under a seizure list prepared in presence of independent witnesses as the accused could not produce any license authorizing him to deal in kerosene oil. On the basis of the said written report Town P.S. Case No. 278/1990 was registered and after due investigation a charge-sheet was submitted.

3. The defence is denial of allegation altogether and it would further appear from the trend of cross-examination that the alleged shop wherefrom the recovery and seizure is said to have been made belonged to the son of the appellant who is separate from the accused. It would also appear that the accused sells lottery tickets and he has no concern whatsoever with either the seized kerosene oil or the shop in question.

4. In support of its case the prosecution sought to examine as many as 7 witnesses, namely, Chhatu Sah (P. W. 1), Vimal Kant Mani Tripathi (P. W. 2), Ajai Kumar Mishra (P. W. 3) who are witnesses of the seizure list, the informant, Girindra Narain Thakur (P. W. 4), Supply Inspector Sidheshwar Prasad (P. W. 6), Sub-Inspector of Police Mithila Nand Upadhayay (P. W. 7) and Md. Shahid Ali alias Bakar Mian (P. W. 5) of whom P. Ws. 1 and 5 have been declared hostile and P. Ws. 2, 3 and 4 have not supported the prosecution case. The prosecution also adduced some documents in evidence.

5. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that the learned trial Court had erred in appreciating the evidence available on record and had wrongly convicted the appellant herein against the weight of evidence not supporting the prosecution case. It was also sought to be submitted that although alleged seizure had been made in broad day light from the shop situated in the market area, yet no independent witness had come forward to support the prosecution case. It was finally submitted that since no storage limit had been prescribed by notification no proceeding could be executed under law against any person for alleged contravention of storage limit on the basis of the provisions of the "Unification Order".

6. It would appear from the testimony of the witnesses examined in Court that P. W. 1 Chhatu Sah has not supported the prosecution case at all and in course of his cross-examination he denied that he had given any statement before the Police. He also denied that he had stated before the police that 14 tins of kerosene oil were seized from the shop of the accused each containing 16 litres. He also denied having stated before the police that measurements were also seized. In course of his cross-examination by the defence P. W. 1 stated that accused Chhabila Sah sells lottery tickets and he is separat