Possession of kerosene in excess of permitted amount without authorization constitutes a statutory violation warranting conviction; speedy trial is essential for justice under Article 21.

JUDGMENT :

PRASENJIT BISWAS, J.

1. The judgment and order dated 30.08.1988 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court (E.C. Act), Midnapore in D.E.B.G.R. No. 15 of 1986 arising out of Daspur P.S. case 11.16.1986 is assailed in this appeal.

2. By passing the impugned judgment and order this appellant was found guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of Act X of 1955 and was sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months along with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month.

3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said impugned judgment and order of conviction the present appeal is filed at the behest of the appellant.

4. The instant case was started on the basis of a complaint lodged by S.I. of Police, D.E.O. of Ghatal District Midnapore stating interalia that on 11.06.1986 in between 9:30 hours and 11:30 hours the complainant along with his raiding team held raid in the unauthorized shop and godown of the accused situated at Barasat Bazar within P.S. Daspur. They found the accused was dealing with light diesel oil and kerosene oil kept in barrels in his godowon. On demand the accused could not produce any license or any authority in support of dealing in such kerosene oil and light diesel oil. Moreover, no stock cum rate board was found displayed at the place of business of the accused. The barrels containing the kerosene and diesel oil which were kept in front of the shop were seized by the raiding team and kept in zimma of one Susil Kr. Jana. A sample of kerosene oil and light diesel oil was taken and subsequently, it was sent to the Indian Oil Corporation for test. It is stated that as the accused has violated the provision of Para 11(2) of the West Bengal Kerocine Control Order, 1968 and Para 3 of the West Bengal Declaration Stock and Prices of Essential Commodities. Order 1977 and for that the accused is liable to be convicted under Section 7(1)a(ii) of Act X of 1955.

5. In this case 8 witnesses were cited by the side of the prosecution and documents were marked as exhibits on his behest. Neither any oral nor any documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellant.

6. Mr. Soham Banerjee learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant said that there are apparent contradictions and omissions in the evidences of the witnesses cited on behalf of the prosecution and as such the impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Special Court is not sustainable under the eye of law. It is said that there is every doubt regarding the place of seizure of the articles. The attention of this Court is drawn by the learned Advocate regarding evidence of PW 1, the D.E.O./complainant who has stated in the written complaint that the place of seizure is the unauthorized shop and godown of the accused situated at Barasat Bazar and this witness corroborated the same at the time of giving deposition. However, PW2 one of the seizure witnesses who turned hostile has stated in his evidence that the seized barrel containing kerosene oil and light diesel oil were found on a football ground. It is further said that the PW5, the another seizure witness who also turned hostile has stated in his evidence that the raid was conducted by a police at the shop of one Sital Mondal on the relevant date and time.

7. It is further assailed by the learned Advocate for the appellant that the de-facto complainant/D.E.O (PW1) mentioned that he had collected 200 grams of kerosene oil and 200 grams of diesel oil from the seized barrels as sample but no explanation has been given by the side of the prosecution that how the samples were measured in grams when the same was collected in the bottles. It is said that in the written complaint 3 barrels were seized but the de-facto complainant collected only two numbers of samples and the prosecution has failed to give any reasonable explanation in this regard. It is said that although PW1 has state