IMPORTANT POINT
Strict adherence to statutory requirements under the Essential Commodities Act is essential for lawful operation, and failure to comply can lead to conviction.

JUDGMENT :

ANANYA BANDYOPADHYAY, J.

1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 23.12.1987 passed by the Learned Judge, Special Court (under the Essential Commodities Act), Midnapore, in D.E.B.G.R. Case No. 31 of 1984 arising out of Jamboni Police Station Case No. 1(8)84 dated 02.08.1984 convicting the appellant under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and sentencing him to simple imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.1000/- in default simple imprisonment for 1 month.

2. The prosecution case precisely stated on 02.08.1984, the complainant accompanied with raiding party inspected the shop-cum-godown of the appellant at about 14:30 hours and noticed 87 bags of wheat containing 100 kgs each bag, 4 bags of “Ata” containing 100 kgs in each bag, 4 tins of Coconut oil containing 15 kgs each and 5 bags of Musur Dal containing 75 kgs each in the said shop-cum-godown of the appellant. A stock-cum-rate board displayed in the said shop-cum-godown did not depict the price and quantity of the essential commodities. The stock and register was filled up to 21.07.1984. Books of accounts in respect of edible oil and pulse were absent. The appellant committed an offence punishable under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

3. Based on the aforesaid complaint, Jamboni Police Station Case No. 1(8)84 was started under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act. The case was also started in violation of Para 3 of the West Bengal Declaration of Stock and Prices of Essential Commodities Order 1977 for not maintaining the stock and price therein at Essential Commodities in the stock-cum-rate board and also for violation of Para 12 of West Bengal Wheat and Production Licencing Control and Prohibition of certain clauses of Commercial Transaction Order 1973.

4. The prosecution examined 4 witnesses and the defence examined 3 witnesses.

5. The Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that:

(i) About 69 years ago, while dealing with a case of corruption, a 3 Judges Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in H.N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi, AIR 1955 SC 196 inter alia observed as follows:

“Thus, under the Code investigation consists generally of the following steps: (1) Proceeding to the spot, (2) Ascertainment of the facts and circumstances of the case, (3) Discovery and arrest of the suspected offender, (4) Collection of evidence relating to the commission of the offence which may consist of (a) the examination of various persons (including the accused) and the reduction of their statements into writing, if the officer thinks fit, (b) the search of places or seizure of things considered necessary for the investigation and to be produced at the trial and (5) Formation of the opinion as to whether on the material collected there is a case to place the accused before a Magistrate for trial and if so taking the necessary steps for the same by the filing of a charge-sheet under Section 173.”

(ii) In the instant case the present I.O. i.e. PW-4 was a part of the raiding team. The FIR and the depositions of the prosecution witnesses including the I.O./PW-4 reveal the I.O. had participated in the raid and subsequently he was entrusted to investigate the same who, on completion of investigation, submitted the chargsheet.

(iii) It was further submitted that if the investigation officer himself was a witness, there was every possibility that the investigation would be tainted since the positive outcome in favour of the prosecution would ensure his service benefit. The doctrine nemo judex causa sua was squarely applicable in the present case. The possibility of other witnesses, who are similarly government employees to be influenced was undeniable. PW-2, Sushil Mahata being the sole independent witness turned hostile and the other independent witness namely Birendranath Mahato was not produced before the Learned Trial Court.

(iv) It was further argued that a Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in Ishdan Seik