Judgment AMIR DAS, J. 1. This appeal is by Raj Ballav Prasad and directed against an order of conviction and sentence, dated 20th February, 1990 passed by Special Judge (E. C. Act). Palamau at Daltonganj in Com plaint Case No. 5 of 1988 corresponding to Trial No. 45 of 1930, by which order the appellant has been convicted for contravention of the provisions of Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Order, 1984) and the terms and conditions of the licence granted to him under the said order and also for contravention of the provisions of Bihar Essential Articles (Display of Price and Stocks) Order, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the Order. 1977) punishable under Section 7 of She Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. 2. Tne appellant is a retail dealer of kerosene oil under a valid licence No. 3/85 issued by the Licencing Authority. On 22nd March, 1988 at about 3.30 p.m. P. Ws. 1 and 2 and other officials made a surprise inspection of the shop of the appellant and found a shortage of 175 litres of kerosene oil. According to the prosecution, the opening stock was 540 litres, 53 litres of kerosene oil was sold before inspection and 18 litres was sold during course of inspection and on physical verification only 294 litres was found in stock. It is also sold that neither the stock of kerosene oil nor its price was displayed on the notice board. The inspection party seized the kerosene oil as well as the stock and sale registers under seizure list ((Ext. 1). P. W. 2, Bindeshwari Prasad, the then Block Supply Officer, Latehar having got instruction from the S. D. O., Latehar. made a complaint (Ext. 4) before the Special Judge, Latehar. The S. D. O. sanctioned the prosecution bv issuing the sanction letter (Ext. 5). 3. The defence is denial of shortage as well as non-displaying the stock and price on the notice board. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined altogether two witnesses and also brought on record the following documents : Seizure list (Ext. 1), Zimanama (Ext. 2), Letter of S. D. O. (Ext. 3), Complaint petition (Ext. 44) and Sanction order (Ext. 5). In support of its case, the prosecution has examined altogether two witnesses and also brought on record the following documents : Seizure list (Ext. 1), Zimanama (Ext. 2), Letter of S. D. O. (Ext. 3), Complaint petition (Ext. 44) and Sanction order (Ext. 5). No evidence either oral or documentary has been adduced on behalf of the appellant. 4. Having taken into consideration the evidences of P. Ws. 1 and 2 and other materials on the record, the Special Judge found and held the appellant gulity under Section 7 of the Act and convicted and sentenced him thereunder as aforementioned. 5. Mr. S. N. Lal arguing the case for the appellant, has put forward the following main contentions against the appellants conviction : (a) that the best possible documentary evidence namely stock register and sale register which were seized and were under the custody of P. W. 1, have purposely been withheld ; (b) that the appellant being a retail dealer is not required under law to display the stock on the notice board as per Governments rule namely, G. S. R. No. 28, dated 27th June, 1986 and that the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 is also contradictory on the points of display of stock of kerosene oil and its price on the notice board ; (c) that the sanction accorded by S. D. O. is not valid under law because at his instance the case was instituted. Lastly, Mr. Lal drew the attention of the Court that the appellant has faced rigours of trial continuously for five years. 6. Mr. T. Mishra, A. P. P. supported the validity of the order of convictoin and sentence. 7. Before going into the merit of the contentions raised by Mr. Lal, I would like to mention that the learned Special Judge has failed to give his own finding relating to sufficiency of the materials constituting the offences levelled against the appellant. No doubt, he has referred the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 but without proper scanning. The finding given at paragraph 10 of the judgment does not seem to be consequential result of the discussion of the evidences of the P. Ws. Not only this, he has also failed to express his own view with regard to non-production of sale register and stock register in Court. 1 and 2 but without proper scanning. The finding given at paragraph 10 of the judgment does not seem to be consequential result of the discussion of the evidences of the P. Ws. Not only this, he has also failed to express his own view with regard to non-production of sale register and stock register in Court. On this background, I would take up the contention raised by Mr. Lal. 8. Admittedly, the entire prosecution case relating to shortage of kerosene oil is based on the entry or statement made in the stock register and sale register maintained by the appellant. Both these two registers were seized and at the time of trial they were in the custody of prosecution but none of the registers was placed for it perusal and inspection. From a perusal of the records, it appears that the Special P. P. made an application seeking adjournment for production of the exhibits of the case including the aforesaid registers. But curiously enough on the very next date, the Special P. P. filed a petition showing his inability in procuring those registers and as such, he prayed for closure of the prosecution case. This mode of conduct of Special P. P. is not a preciable because he should have taken effective steps to search out those registers so that the best possible documentary evidence would have been brought on the record. The fact relating to stock and sale registers should have been proved by such document. Non-production of those documents not only debarred the defence from inspection of the documents but also handicapped the Court to give necessary guarantee to the accuracy of the testimony of the witnesses. Therefore, it is difficult to believe the oral evidence relating to the entry made in the aforesaid registers. The trial Judge has given a passing reference to this fatal lacuna of the prosecution case, resultant there has been miscarriage of justice. 9. I would also like to mention that on the point of display of stock of kerosene oil and its price on the notice board is also contradictory. It would be better to quote the very sentence used by P. W. 1 in paragraph 12, which is as follows. 9. I would also like to mention that on the point of display of stock of kerosene oil and its price on the notice board is also contradictory. It would be better to quote the very sentence used by P. W. 1 in paragraph 12, which is as follows. "Stock register or notice board oos roj ka kerosene tel ka opening balance dekhe the dono ek hi thai." It is very categorical statement that the stock of kerosene oil was displayed on the notice board at the time of inspection. Therefore, the statement of P. W. 2 cannot be said sufficiently trustworthy and reliable. 10 Turning to the requirement of display of stock on the notice board by the appellant, I find force in the contention of Mr. Lal. No evidence has been adduced on behalf of the prosecution to establish that the appellant was a retail dealer of Public Distribution System. A simple retail dealer like appellant dose not require to display the stock on the notice board as per Government standing order, vide G. S. R. 28, dated 27th June, 1986. Surprisingly, this point has also scaped the notice of the trial Judge. 11. Turning to the last contention raised on the validity of the sanction, I find it difficult to agree with Mr. Lal. As a matter of fact, S. D. O. Latehar was apprised of the facts found by P. W. 2 in course of inspection of the appellants shop. Having applied his mind, he simply directed P. W. 2 to make a complaint against the appellant. Merely on issuance of such direction, the S. D. O., Latehar cannot be blamed that he was interested and as such he accorded sanction. The word interested postulates the motive or intention to implicate a person falsely owing to malice or grudge. There is nothing on the record to show that S. D. 0. concerned was in any way interested to get the appellant implicated falsely. Therefore, the validity of sanction accorded by him cannot be challenged. Thus, the contention having no merit, is rejected. 12. In view of the above discussion, I find and hold that the oral evidence of the witnesses relied upon by the trial Judge is not trustworthy and reliable for basing the appellants conviction. I find force in appeal which has to be allowed. 13. Thus, the contention having no merit, is rejected. 12. In view of the above discussion, I find and hold that the oral evidence of the witnesses relied upon by the trial Judge is not trustworthy and reliable for basing the appellants conviction. I find force in appeal which has to be allowed. 13. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant is hereby set aside. The appellant, who is on bail, is also ordered to be discharged from the liability of his bail bond.