The main legal point established in the judgment is the admissibility of evidence from hostile witnesses and the requirement of corroboration by other reliable evidence in cases involving violations of the Essential Commodities Act and related regulations.

In S.T.28 of 1985 the Special Judge for Trail of Offences under the Essential Commodities Act. Trichur convicted both the appellants under S.7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act (for short 'the Act') for having violated the provisions of S.3(2)(c) and S.3(2)(d) thereof and Clause 4 (1) of the kerala Cement Distribution (Licensing send regulation) Order. 1974 (for short 'Regulation') and they were each sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fins of Rs. 1.000/- with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for the month.

2. The prosecution case is that the second appellant purchased 200 bags of non-levy cement from Cochin Mercantile Corporation an 14-11-1984 and the same was stored in the godown of the joint bulginess belonging to both he appellants end sixty begin out of it was sold to C.Wg.1 to. 6.

3. Pws.l to 11 were examined and Exts.P1 to P21 were marked. PWs.10 and U are the iovesngetirg officers red Pws.l to 9 are the witnesses examined to prove the offered. Except Pws. 4. 6. 7.10 and 11 all other prosecution witnesses turned be stile. Pw 5 was declared hostile only in re-examination. Therefore the recurrent en hi all of the appellants was that conviction was without any legal evidence at all.

4. Basing on the decisions in Manipur Administration v. Nlla Chandra Singh (1964 SC. 1533) and Moideen v. Sub Inspector of Police (3972 KLT 64) it was also argued that the requirement is not that the person should merely sell. purchase or store. but that be must be carrying en the business of such purchase. sale or storage; and the concept of business in the context must necessarily postulate continuity of transactions. It was also pointed out that it is not a single casual or solitary transaction of salt. purchase or storage that would make a person a dealer. The learned counsel for a moment seems to have ignored the fact that those two cafes are under the Foodgrains Dealers' Licensing Order whereat we are concerned only with the Regulation.

5. Clause 3 of the Regulation provides that no person shall store or have in his possession at any time. more than 20 bags (one tonne) of cement except under and in accordance with the provisions of the Regulation. Clause 4(1) prohibits not only carrying on business as a stockists except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a licence. but it also prohibits all persons including stockists or dealers from selling cement without a licence. Mere possession or a single sale in contravention of the above provisions will be violation of Clauses 3 and 4. The question is only whether such violations are established.

6. It is true that moral conviction. however strong. cannot be substitute for legal evidence for a conviction. But in this case there are grounds not only for moral conviction. Legal evidence is also there even though the appellants. with their influence. were able to win over most of the prosecution witnesses. It is clear that all the hostile witnesses were swearing against their conscience solely for the purpose of helping the appellants and the reason is also evident. As held in Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana (1976 SC 202) cited by the counsel for the appellants themselves. characterising a witness as hostile does not completely efface his evidence. The evidence remains admissible and there is no legal bar to base a conviction upon his testimony. What is involved in such cases is only a rule of caution total there should be corroboration by other reliable evidence.

7. The learned Social! Judge seems to be unaware as to how statements under S.161(3) Crl. PC. will have to be used for contradiction. The exact portions sought to be contradicted must be put to the witness and recorded in the deposition and it will have to be marked subject to proof by the investigating officer. Then it must be put to the investigating officer and proved. The Special Judge has not at all :recorded the C D. statement and there is nothing to show which