Conviction upheld under the Essential Commodities Act with modified sentencing based on evidentiary support.

1. Judgment and order dated 29.07.1986 passed by Learned Judge, Special Court, Barasat, North 24 Parganas under Essential Commodities Act , in Special Case No. 93 of 1985 convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under S.7(i)(a)(ii) of the for violation of the provisions of Paragraphs 3(1) of the West Bengal Pulses, Edible Oilseeds and Edible Oils (Dealers Licencing) Order, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as Orders of 1978) and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rupees Rs.1000/- in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months more has been assailed.

2. The prosecution case as levelled against the appellant is to the effect that on 20.08.1985 at about 11 A.M. P.W.6, D.K. Dutta, S.I. of police attached to D.E.B. Naihati Zone inspected the grocery shop of the accused along with P.W.3, Inspector of police attached to D.E.B. North 24 Parganas and two constables, P.W.4 & P.W.5 respectively. Upon inspection they found mustard oil weighing 605 kg. and vegetable oil 195 kg. in the shop of the appellant. The appellant was present in the shop but failed to produce any licence or permit for carrying on trade in mustard oil or vegetable oil. Upon weighment of the seized oil by P.W.6, he took sample of mustard oil in a bottle. The mustard oil and vegetable oil were also seized under a seizure list (Ext.2/3). It was further alleged that there was no proper display of stock board and price list in the shop. P.W.6 also seized a stock register and trade licence of the shop. F.I.R. was registered at Naihtati P.S. by P.W.6 and P.W.1 A.K. Saha, A.S.I. of police drew up the formal F.I.R and started Naihati P.S. Case No.24 dated 20.08.1985 against the appellant. The appellant was arrested in the course of investigation and on completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant. Substance of accusation was read over to the appellant for commission of offence punishable under S.7(i)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act for violation of paragraph 3(1) of O.1978 and paragraph 3(2) of West Bengal Declaration of Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as Order of 1977) who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3. In course of trial, prosecution examined 6 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. The defence of the appellant was one of innocence and false implication.

4. In conclusion of trial, the Trial Court by the impugned judgment and order convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforesaid.

5. The appellant was, however, found not guilty for violating of paragraph 3(2) of the Order of 1977.

6. Nobody appears in support of the appeal, when the matter is called on.

7. Ms. Anasuya Sinha, learned advocate, is requested to appear in this matter as amicus curiae and assist this court.

8. Ms. Sinha submits that the independent witness, that is, the prosecution witness no. 2 has not supported the prosecution case. She submits that no chemical examination of the seized sample was made to prove that the same was mustard oil. That apart, it was the clear defence of the appellant that the mustard oil had not been seized from his premises and his signature on the stock register had been forcibly procured at the behest of the police. She also disputed the weighment of the goods. She, therefore, prays for acquittal of the appellant.

9. On the other hand, Mr. Saryati Dutta, learned advocate for the State, submits that the evidence of official witnesses unequivocally show that the seizure of mustard oil and / or the vegetable oil was above the permissible limit