IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay C.R.A. 227 of 1989 Md. Samsuddin Khan -Vs-

The State of West Bengal For the Appellant : Ms. Debanwita Pramanik Mr. Sajid Hussain For the State : Ms. Faria Hossain Heard on : 22.05.2024, 15.07.2025 Judgment on : 01.08.2025 Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.:-

1. This appeal is preferred against judgment and order dated 25.05.1989 passed by the Learned Judge, Special Court (Essential Commodities Act), Durgapur in T.R. Case No.50 of 1988, thereby convicting the appellant under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for violation of Paragraph 3(i) of the West Bengal Rice and Paddy (Licencing and Control) Order, 1967, para II(2) of West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968 and para 3(2) of West Bengal Declaration of Stock and Prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1977 and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment of 2 years for each violation/provision of three aforesaid control orders, directing the sentences to run concurrently and seized articles to be confiscated, if not already done.

2. The prosecution case precisely stated on 30.10.1988 at the noon hours, the D.E.O., along with other forces had been at the grocery shop of the appellant and found the same open. Certain customers were present at that relevant time but at the sight of the police personnel, they fled. The D.E.O., served a notice upon the appellant to produce relevant documents i.e., stock register, cash memo, sale register, license etc., for dealing in rice and other essential commodities in shop. The D.E.O., also did not find any stock-cum-rate board, displayed at the shop. The appellant failed to produce any such document as asked for. The officers recovered 7 bags of Rice, containing 520 kgs each and 1½ tins of Kerosene Oil, containing 20 litres in total from the shop. A seizure list was prepared in respect of the commodities, the appellant was brought to police station under arrest.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, the Police initiated Pandabeswar P.S. Case No.10 dated 30.10.1988 under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act against the appellant and proceeded with the investigation of the case.

4. Charges were framed against the appellant under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 3 witnesses and exhibited certain documents while the defence examined 2 witnesses.

6. Considered the rival contentions of the Learned Advocate representing the appellant as well as the State.

7. The evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses revealed the D.E.O. had been specifically authorized to conduct the investigation in the instant case based on the complaint filed by the A.S.I. of Police. The appellant could not produce the stock-cum-rate board to be displayed in the grocery shop. The stock register, sale register, cash memo, licence etc. concerning the transaction in rice and other essential commodities could not be produced by the appellant on service of notice upon him by the D.E.O. to produce the same. The recovery of 7 bags of rice containing 420 kgs. and 1½ tins of kerosene oil containing 20 litres of the same were seized under a seizure list.

8. The appellant could not prove the presence of his wife and children in an adjacent portion of the grocery shop on rent occupied as a resident for consuming the aforesaid amount of rice by the family. The impugned judgment and order had, with valid reasons, explained the violation of the provisions of Para 3(2) of the West Bengal Declaration of Stock and Prices of Essential Commodities Order 1977, Para 2 of Section 11 of the West Bengal Kerosene (Control Order) 1968 and Clause (a) of Para 1 of Section 3 of the West Bengal Rice and Paddy (Licence and Control Order) 1967.

9. In the decision of Tarak Nath Keshari Vs. State of West Bengal1