Manik Lal Das, a Sub Inspector of Police companyducted a raid in the shop of the appellant on 28.1.1991.
On a look at the said document it appears that the opening stock of kerosene oil in company.
28.1.1991 from distributor.
The learned Trial Judge formulated the following points for his companysideration Whether the accused can be indicted for number display of stock and price list as required under para 3 2 of W.B. Declaration of Stocks and Prices of E.C. Order, 1977.
One tin made funnel.
6 of the licence issued to him under the 1968 Order was found to have been violated.
According to stock register he received 200 liters of K. Oil on the same date i.e. total 1700 liters of K. Oil on 27.01.1991.
2,000/ in default to suffer R.I. for another one month to suffer R.I. for three months and to pay fine of Rs.2000/ in default to suffer R.I. for 15 days.
He failed to do so.
DP/64 in the name of Shri Harendra Nath Chakraborty S o Dinabandhu Chakraborty of village Alipore, P.S. Dadpore, Dist.
of kerosene oil together with 502 ltrs.
26 11 Com.
of kerosene oil from his distributor on 28.01.1991.
Inference, as such, can rightly be drawn against him under Section 114 g of the Evidence Act and to companyclude that the material Ext.
Consequently, taking into account this 1000 ltrs.
4 of Daily Stock Register Mat.
1, it was held that the stock of kerosene was number displayed on the display board.
The total stock of Kerosene Oil was found as 450 excepting sale of Oil 257 liters dated 28.01.1991.
3 and 4 that the seized kerosene oil was put in the custody of Tapan Chakraborty, your son PW 5 by way of a Zimmanama.
During physical verification in presence of witnesses i Sri Ashoke Kr.
III is numberhing but the stock and rate board intended to be displayed by the accused as required under para 3 2 of the Order.
Whether the accused has failed to companyply with the terms and companyditions of the licence for dealing in kerosene oil.
The prosecution case based on the basic primary material which the prosecution had brought on record, namely, raid in the shop, the stock of kerosene oil found, the seizure of the display board, stock register, cash memo, etc.,
1 and 2 who were examined as independent witnesses in their depositions categorically stated that the stock of the kerosene oil was written on the display board, the learned trial judge as also the High Court companymitted a serious error of law in opining that appellant had companytravened companydition No.
A first information report was lodged inter alia alleging I started physical verification of stock cum rate board stock register, cash memo book in respect of dealing of K.Oil and found opening stock of K.Oil dated 27.01.1991 as 1500 liters.
All the documents as also the material objects which were seized were duly approved.
of kerosene oil by the accused on 28.01.1991 and in that view of the matter, it is difficult to companyceive that the physical stock of kerosene oil at the shop of the accused having taken into the aforesaid sale transaction would be 795 ltrs.
Or, more precisely, in the absence of any legal unimpeachable evidence as to the expected physical stock of kerosene oil at the shop of the accused on 28.01.1991 having taken into account the sale transaction it is difficult to see eye to eye with the version of the prosecution that the physical stock of kerosene oil was number in companysonance with the expected stock.
Several irregularities were found.
On scrutiny of the said board, as the indication of the opening being found companyspicuous by its absence stock of kerosene oil as well as its wholesale or retail price on the relevant date, I am of the view that the allegation against the accused that he has violated the provision of para 3 2 of the Order is well founded.
Kashem P.W.2 who were examined before the Court and proved the seizure of articles during the said raid, were declared hostile.
II is the so called stock register produced and identified by I.O. PW.6 before the companyrt in the absence of number examination of the defacto companyplaint.
One cash memo book in the name of Sri Harendra Nath Chakraborty for K.Oil companymencing from memo No.1 to 1000 in which memo 1 to 477 have been written.
What do you say in this regard?
An appeal preferred by the appellant before the High Court was admitted only on the question of sentence.
But, the fact remains as has been already pointed out that the accused did number maintain the stock register showing the opening balance and the companysequence sale from the said quantity to the companysumers in breach of the mandatory provision of para 12 of the order and in that view of the matter, he companyes under the mischief of the provision of the said para.
As such the opening balance should have been 502 liters on 28.01.1991.
Thus, the companydition No.
The opening balance of kerosene oil as on 28.1.1991 was number mentioned in the stock register.
8 as to the balance of kerosene oil, which should be drawn as opening balance on 28.01.1991.
So far as point No.
It was, however, held that having regard to the fact that the Investigating Officer did number verify the cash memos, the charges brought against the appellant that the actual quantity of kerosene was found to be short by 795 liters was number proved.
found on measurement.
50 fifty liters of Kerosene oil found in an open small drum.
Two barrels of Kerosene Oil 200 liter in each barrel.
The learned Judge held Onus, thus, shifts upon the accused to discharge the burden lying upon him regarding display of stock and price board as required under para 3 2 of the Order.
One polythene pipe measuring 7 feet.
Material Ext.
1 to 44 have been return and showing opening balance in the said stock register dated 27.01.1991 1500 liters and showing received 200 liters on 27.01.1991 and 1000 one thousand liters on 28.01.1991.
On point No.
of kerosene oil was received during business hours.
Out of 1700 liters he sold 1198 liter as per cash memo dated 27.01.1991.
But the Harendranath Chakraborty did number put opening balance on 28.01.1991 though he received 1000 liters of K. Oil vide cash memo No.
According to stock register and cash memo book the total stock of K.Oil should have been 1502 liters.
Genl/66, dated 18th June, 1966.
On the aforementioned findings, a judgment of companyviction and sentence as indicated hereinbefore was recorded.
Two independent witnesses, namely, i Ashok Kumar Mullick W.1 and ii Sk.
had been put to him.
One tin made measuring pot for 1 liter.
Hooghly, valid upto 31.12.1991.
II and thereby belies the statement of W. 5 who was rightly declared as hostile that only 400 ltrs.
Q 7 It appears further from the statement made by the PW Nos.
of kerosene oil at the shop of the accused on the relevant date and thereby lends support to the case of the prosecution regarding opening balance of kerosene oil after taking into account the sale transaction on 27.01.1991 as 502 ltrs.
The prosecution case as against appellant discloses three distinct offences.
According to the prosecution, accused received 1000 ltrs.
767, 768 dt.
True of companyrse, there is numberocular testimony from the side of the prosecution barring production of cash memo regarding sale of any kerosene oil by the accused on 28.01.1991 W. 6 I.O. having admitted that he did number verify the cash memo book for the purpose of ascertaining the sale transaction on 27.01.1991 and 28.01.1991, the companyrt is left with numbercogent material to subscribe to the view of the prosecution regarding sale of kerosene oil of 257 ltrs.
One tin made stock board of K. Oil in the name of Sri Harendra Nath Chakraborty, numberhing was written.
Inference, as such, can be drawn against the accused for number maintenance of the stock register as required by a licensee.
B. SINHA, J. Leave granted.
12 of 1991 companyvicting him under Section 7 1 a ii of the Essential Commodities Act,1955 hereinafter called and referred to, for the sake of brevity, as the Act reducing the sentence imposed on him from rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.
This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 29.2.2008 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Calcutta allowing the appeal in part preferred by the appellant herein from a judgment and order of companyviction and sentence dated 16.3.1993 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court E.C. Act , Hooghly, West Bengal in Special Court Case No.
Kasem S o Late Sk.
As opposed 450 ltrs.
This is number true, I am innocent.
One tin made measuring pot for liter.
of kerosene oil as opening balance on 28.01.1991 at the shop of the accused, the figure companyes to 1502 ltrs.
For dealing in the said companymodity, a licence is required to be taken under the 1968 Order.
Appellant was a dealer in kerosene oil having been granted licence in terms of the provisions of the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968 for short, the 1968 Order made by the State of West Bengal in exercise of its powers companyferred by sub section 1 of Section 3 of the Act read with clauses d , e , h and j of sub section 2 of that Section and Section 7 1 thereof as also the Order No.
Appellant was holder of a licence bearing No.
Ravindra Nath Mondal P.W.6 , Investigating Officer, however, examined himself.
What do you say in this regard?
Mallick S o Shri Hardhan Mallick of Alipore, P.S. Dadpur, Dist Hooghly ii Sk.
The State of West Bengal apart from the aforementioned 1968 Order made West Bengal Declaration of Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1977 for short, the 1977 Order Indisputably, kerosene is an essential companymodity within the meaning of sub section 1 of Section 2A of the Act.
Admittedly, appellant received 1000 liters of kerosene oil from the distributor on the same day.
Rabin of Alipore village, P.S. Dadpore.
2 remained blank number anything was mentioned in companyumn No.6 on 27.01.1991 as to the actual sale of kerosene oil number companyumn No.
7 indicated shortage of said kerosene oil number anything was pointed out in companyumn No.
