The main legal point established in the judgment is that a biased investigation and failure to substantiate the case can lead to a miscarriage of justice, warranting the setting aside of a conviction.

JUDGMENT

Shampa Dutt (Paul), J. - This is an appeal against judgment and order dated 21.09.1989 passed by Judge Special Court (E.C. Act), Midnapore in D.E.B. G.R. Case No. 12 of 1988 convicting the accused/appellants of the offence under Section 7 (1) (a) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for alleged violation of the provisions of Para 3(2) of the West Bengal Declaration of Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1977 and Para 3(1) of the West Bengal Pulses Edible Oil Seeds and Edible Oils (Dealers Licencing) Order, 1978 and sentencing them to suffer R.I. for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each, in default, to suffer R.I. for one month each.

2. The prosecution case in short is that on 30.03.1988 at 15.15 hrs. one S.K. Mukherjee, Inspector of Police (D.E.B.), Midnapore (PW 4) lodged a purported written information with the Daspur Police Station,

3. District-Midnapore alleging, inter alia, that on 30.03.1988 at 10.00 hrs. he (PW 4) alongwith Sub-Inspector A.B.Pal of D.E.B., Ghatal (PW 7) and constable Ahibhusan Singha Mahapatra (PW 3) went to the shop-cum- godown of the accused/appellants at Lankagarh Bazar within Daspur P.S. and found both the accused/appellants present there and also found pulses and other articles in that Shop-cum-Godown and also found them running business in pulses and attending customers. The informant thereafter disclosed his identity and served a notice on the accused/appellant no. 1 asking him to produce all the records in respect of his business of pulses but he failed to produce any licence or document in respect of the business of Khesari pulses. He also failed to produce any Stock-cum-Rate Board nor the same was found displayed in the said Shop-cum-Godown. Thereafter the informant (PW 4) seized 69 bags of Khesari pulses after weighing the same in presence of witnesses, namely, Susanta Sasmal (PW 1) and Sankar Prasad Roy (PW 2) under a seizure list and kept the same in the Zimma of Susanta Sasmal (PW 1).

4. The informant accordingly alleged that both the accused/appellants have violated the provisions of para 3(1) (2) (3) of the West Bengal Declaration of Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1977 and para 3(1) of the West Bengal Pulses Edible Oil Seeds and Edible Oils (Dealers Licencing) Order, 1978 for which they are liable to be prosecuted under Section 7(1) (a) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

5. That on receipt of the said written complaint from the Inspector S.K. Mukherjee of D.E.B., Midnapore (PW 4), Sub-Inspector S. Pal of Daspur Police Station started a case being Daspur P.S. Case No. 13 dated 30.03.1988 under Section 7(1) (a) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 against the accused/appellants.

6. On completion of investigation chargesheet was submitted and the accuseds/appellants were examined under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. who pleaded not guilty. On completion of trial the appellants were convicted and sentenced as above.

7. Mr. Ayan Bhattacharya, learned Amicus Curiae submits on behalf of the appellant that the learned Trial Judge did not asses the evidence on record properly and the learned Judge failed to apply his mind judicially and totally overlooked the discrepancies and lacunas in the prosecution evidence. The Ld. Trial Judge failed to consider that the seizure witnesses did not support the prosecution case and the public witnesses were declared hostile. The only witnesses who supported the prosecution case were all part of the raiding team and junior in rank to the Inspector who led the raid. PW 7 a member of the raiding team is also the investigating officer and which is completely against the principle of natural justice. That the seizure and other formalities were not properly done in accordance with law and that the appellants were not given proper opportunity to produce the documents as asked for and the learned Judge also failed to consider that the prosecution could not prove their charge against the appellants by way