The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was engaged in illegal dealings for a conviction under the Essential Commodities Act.

JUDGMENT :

Prasenjit Biswas, J.

1. This instant appeal is preferred at the behest of the appellants challenging the impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 04.01.1995 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court (Under the Essential Commodities Act) Hooghly in Special Case No. 42/1992 arisen out of Chanditala Police Station Case No. 31 dated 22.5.1992.

2. By passing the impugned judgment this appellant No.1 along with the other accused was convicted under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1985 for violation of paragraph 3(7) of the West Bengal Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel Oil (Licensing Control and Maintenance of Supplies) Order, 1980 and was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months along with a fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for three months each.

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. During pendency of this appeal the appellant no. 2, Ganesh Chandra Mudi died and the instant appeal stood abated against him.

5. The instant case was started on the basis of a complaint lodged by the de facto complainant stating interalia that on 22.05.1992 he along with the member of the raiding team conducted raid at the house of the deceased accused Ganesh Chandra Mudi at Mudipara, village Ramanathpore and during such raid 460 liters of diesel oil was recovered from their possession but the accused persons failed to produce any valid document for keeping such oil at the place of occurrence. The case was stared on the strength of the said complaint. The seizure list and weighment chart was prepared in the presence of the witnesses and seized diesel oil was kept in zimma.

6. In this case, three witnesses were adduced by the side of the prosecution and the documents as well as seized articles were marked as exhibited on its behalf. Neither any oral nor any documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellant/ accused persons.

7. The learned advocate for the appellant said that there are apparent contradictions and omissions in the depositions of the witnesses in the case and as such the impugned judgment and order of conviction against this appellant is not sustainable under the law.

8. The attention of this Court drawn to the evidences of the witnesses and it is said that there is no material in the record for which it can be said that this appellant was dealing with the said seized diesel oil. Moreover, P.W. 2 the witness to the seizure did not say anything involving the appellant with the alleged offence. Although, there are two witnesses in the seizure, one of the witnesses was not examined by the side of the prosecution and no explanation was given for the prosecution for non-examination of the said witness to the seizure. Beside P.W. 1 and PW3 who are the police personnel, no witness to the locality was cited by the side of the prosecution to prove the case which creates doubts regarding its genuineness.

9. It is further contended by the learned Advocate that the provision as enumerated in Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 regarding confiscation of the seized article was not duly followed up. As per submission of the learned Advocate that the entire proceeding of the case was vitiated for non-compliance of the relevant provision of law. As such it is prayed that the impugned judgment and order of conviction is not sustainable and it may be set aside outr