The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for a conviction under the Essential Commodities Act, which was not established in this case.

JUDGMENT :

CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS, J.

1. This is an appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Section 12 AB of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 against the judgement and order dated 31.3.1992 passed by the Judge, Special Court (E.C) at Malda in Special Court case no. 49 of 1990 whereby the Learned Special Court passed the order of conviction against the present appellant and directed each of the convict to suffer sentence of R.I for three months and to pay a fine of ₹250 i.e to suffer R.I for further one month on each of the two counts of the offence punishable under Section 7 (1) (a)(ii) of Act X of 1955.

2. The facts of the case in a nut shell is that on 25.10.19 at 4.55 P.M at Kanchantar within P.S English Bazar, S.I, S.C. Saha of E.B.P.S along with his force intercepted a Truck bearing no. W.G.R.671 and found carrying 25 bags of rice, each bag containing about one quintal of rice. The present appellant was the driver of the said Truck who along with four other accused persons were within the said truck. On interrogation, accused Nakul disclosed that out of 25 bags of rice, four bags belong to him and rest belong to other occupants of the truck who jointly deals with rice. The Police Officer seized the 25 bags of rice as the accused persons failed to produce any valid license or permit to show their business and for transport of the same, and thereafter, the truck was also seized in presence of local witnesses. The accused persons were also arrested and brought at E.B.P.S, where the said Officer lodged the written complaint.

3. The case was entrusted to S. I, R.N. Sarkar, attached to D.E.B, Malda for the purpose of investigation, and accordingly, he took up the investigation and after completion of the said investigation, he submitted the charge sheet punishable under the aforesaid provision for contravention of para (4) of W.B. Rice and Paddy (licensing and control) order, 1967, against all the accused persons. The content of the said charges were read over and explained to the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, and accordingly the trial commenced. The learned Special Court after assessing the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses, and after hearing the submissions of both the Learned Counsels passed the order of conviction. Being aggrieved, thereby this appeal has been filed.

4. The Learned Amicus Curiae appointed by this Court argued that the Learned Special Court failed to consider that the appellant was merely a truck driver and was carrying the rice like other drivers of other vehicles who were never questioned .Furthermore the appellant being a driver of the vehicle cannot be described as a dealer within the meaning of the West Bengal, Rice and Paddy. (licensing and control.) 1967, and the Learned Judge has erred in not considering the aspect of the case. There was no evidence on record as to whether the alleged place of interception of the truck, namely Kanchantar is within the prohibited area from the international border. That apart most of the witnesses were police witness and the owner of the truck and the seizure list witness were declared hostile. They failed to identify all the accused persons. It is specifically argued that the case Truck was not intercepted at kanchantar and it was not carrying any rice and the truck was merely standing on the roadside at Rathbari more ,empty and the police personnel stacked the rice which were lying at the side of N.H. 34 on the case truck with the help of other accused persons who were taking tea