The prosecution must prove intentional violation of regulations, and mere ownership does not imply liability when the owner is incapacitated.

JUDGMENT :

Prasenjit Biswas, J.

1. The impugned judgment and order dated 23.05.1986 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, E.C. Act, Howrah, in connection with Special Court Case No. 120/84 is assailed in this appeal.

2. By passing the impugned judgment this appellant was found guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 7 (i)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months along with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month.

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

4. The substance of the prosecution case may be narrated in brief as follows:

“On 01.09.1984 at about 11.30 a.m., PW2 Rasomoy Mitra, Inspector of Police, Enforcement Branch (W.B.), along with other police personnel, carried out a surprise raid in the shop of appellant no.1, Dibakar Mondal, who was a licensed dealer in rice and kerosene oil at Ghosal Chak under Uluberia Police Station. At the time of inspection, the proprietor, Dibakar Mondal, was not present, but his employee, appellant no.2 Sunil Mondal, was available in the shop. Upon demand, the appellant no.2 produced certain records including the kerosene oil stock register, sale register, token register, stock-cum-rate board for kerosene, and the rice stock register, which appeared to have been written up to 30.08.1984. Scrutiny of the kerosene stock register revealed that there should have been a balance of 299 litres of kerosene oil as on the said date, which was also shown as the opening balance on the rate board. However, physical measurement of the stock disclosed only one barrel containing approximately 100 litres of kerosene. The appellant no.2 was unable to produce any cash memos, sale particulars, or accounts to explain the disposal of the remaining 199 litres. The inspecting officer further detected 66 bags of rice weighing about 53 quintals, which was well in excess of the permissible stock limit. Appellant no.2 could not show any register, authority or licence to justify such storage, nor was there a stock-cum-rate board displayed in respect of the rice. Consequently, the kerosene, rice, and relevant registers and documents were seized under a properly prepared seizure list in the presence of witnesses, and custody (zimma) of the seized commodities was handed over to one Madan Mohan Mondal. Thereafter, appellant no.2 was taken to Uluberia Police Station, where PW2 lodged a written complaint, pursuant to which Uluberia P.S. Case No. 2 dated 01.09.1984 was registered against the appellants. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted by the prosecuting agency against the appellants.”

5. In this case, the prosecution has examined nine witnesses and the defence examined one witness. Documents were marked as exhibits on behalf of the prosecution and the defence.

6. Mr. Sekhar Kumar Basu, learned S