JUDGMENT :

Subhendu Samanta, J.

1. The instant appeal has been preferred against the order of conviction passed by Learned Judge, Special Court, (EC Act) Hooghly on 9th day of January 1987 in special case no. 158 of 1985 u/s 7(1) a (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act for alleged contravention of the Para 3(2) of the West Bengal Declaration of Stock and Prices of Essential Commodities Order 1977 and sentence the appellant to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one month.

2. The brief fact of the prosecution case is that on the basis of source information P.W. 1, District Enforcement Officer along with some force visited and conducted raid at the Mill of the present appellant under the name and style of Paul Pure Oil Mill on 05.07.1985.

3. During the inspection it reveals that the stock of both Mustered Seeds and Mustered Oil was actually excess than it was written in the stock board. Appellant was not present, his employee namely Naren Biswas was present there who did not give any satisfactory explanation for such excess. Thereafter PW 1 has seized the Mustered Seeds and Mustered Oil with the proper seizure list in presence of witness and lodged the written complaint with the police. On the basis of the complaint the investigation was conducted and it was ended in charge sheet. Present appellant was sent up for trial. During ‘plea’ u/s 251 Cr.P.C. the appellant pleaded innocence.

4. During trial prosecution has produced 07 witnesses and exhibited seizure list, stock board, zimmanama, weighment chart e.t.c. From the defence side only one witness was examined as DW 1. After completion of trial and after hearing Learned Public Prosecutor and the Defence Advocate the impugned order of conviction and sentence was passed by the Learned Sessions Judge.

5. Hence this appeal.

6. Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted before this court that the impugned order of conviction and sentence passed by the Learned Special Judge is illegal and improper. The Learned Special Judge has failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of this case and came to an erroneous finding. Learned Special Judge, should have held that the stock board usually maintained at the end of the business but as the raid was conducted during the business hours the stock was not appeared correctly.

7. He further pointed out that Learned court below is misread and misdirected himself in passing the impugned order for not considering the evidences of DW 1. He further pointed out that the independent seizure witnesses cannot be believed as he deposed just opposite to the prosecution case. He pointed out that the order of conviction on the basis of the materials available on the record is illegal and liable to be set aside.

8. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the state submitted that the PW 1 is the complainant himself who proves the factum of raid; seizure affected on the date of occurrence. PW 2 is the independent seizure witnesses who supported the prosecution case and proved his signature over the seizure list. PW 3 is the salesmen, PW 4 is the local seizure witness and other PWs are official witnesses. He pointed out that the case of the prosecution was successfully proved by the cogent oral and documentary evidences. The findings of the Learned Special judge cannot be set aside on the ground that the every pros and cons of this case was specifically verified and explained by the Learned Special Judge himself. He further pointed out the impugned order of conviction and sentence is a speaking order, so it cannot be set aside.

9. Heard, the Learned Advocate perused the materials on record also perused the statement of witnesses. In this particular case the PW 1 with his party conducted raid at the business placed of the appellant between 10:00 Hrs. to 13:30 Hrs. Obviously, the time of raid is a business time. During the raid, PW 1 found that the actual stock