This appeal is preferred by the accused-appellant, Sri Hem Chandra Talukdar and Md Sultan Ahmed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence so passed by the Special Judge, Sonitpur in CR Case No.21 of 1985 dated 10th of August, 1988 by virtue of which finding the accused-appellant guilty of contravening certain provisions of the Assam Paddy and Rice Procurement (Licensing and Levy) Order, 1981, hereinafter referred as Order, an offence punishable under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 convicted and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for further period of 15 days. 2. Heard Mr. JM Choudhury, learned counsel for the accused-appellants and Mrs. K. Deka learned Public Prosecutor, Assam for the respondent. 3. On behalf of the accused-appellants it is submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence so passed detailed above is bad in law inasmuch as that the learned Court below erred in law as well as in facts in convicting and sentencing the accused-appellants under the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The prosecution case in narrow compass is that one truck bearing Registration No. ARZ 681 was so seized on the alleged date of occurrence at about 12.15 PM at Orang Check Gate (Chikiachuburi) by the Checker figuring in course of trial as PW 2 and also by the Sub Inspector Sri Rabindra Chakravarty (PW 1) of Food and Civil Supplies, Sootea and that truck over and above the driver, the accused-appellants were also found and the truck was having 136 bags of paddy packed in old gunny bags approximately about 95.20 Quintals. According to the prosecution which is so launched by the PW 1, Sub Inspector Shri Robindra Chakravarty, the truck along with the paddy bags was so seized and after obtaining sanction order as claimed by the prosecution from the competent authority, ie the Deputy Commissioner, Darrang, Tezpur, the prosecution was so launched. After such seizure, the Seizure List was also so prepared of all the paddy bags so seized and one Challan so produced by the appellants with regard to the transit of the paddy bags was also seized. The prosecution report is marked as Exhibit 6, whereas Exhibit 1 is the Seizure List. After such seizure, the Seizure List was also so prepared of all the paddy bags so seized and one Challan so produced by the appellants with regard to the transit of the paddy bags was also seized. The prosecution report is marked as Exhibit 6, whereas Exhibit 1 is the Seizure List. The Challan is marked as Exhibit 4 and the letter of sanction for prosecution is marked as Exhibit 5. 5. In course of trial two witnesses are so examined on behalf of the prosecution and they are PW 1 Sri Robindra Chakravarty, the Sub Inspector and PW 2 Sri Jogeswar Das, the Checker so deputed at the relevant time at the said Check Gate. 6. The accused-appellants were charged of contravening clause 3 of the Assam Paddy and Rice Procurement (Licensing and Levy) Order, 1981, because as per the said Order a licence was so required to be procured as per clause 4 by the dealer before engaging himself in any such business. According to the prosecution the accused-appellants who were very much on the truck moving with 136 bags of paddy who were not having valid licence and therefore they committed an offence under the said Order punishable under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Clause 3 of the said order runs as under : “Dealings to be licensed - No dealer shall engage in any business which involves purchase, sale or storage for sale of paddy and for conversion into rice and paddy and/or rice except in accordance with the terms and conditions of a licence under this Order: Provided that nothing in this clause in so far as sale or storage for sale of paddy or rice is concerned shall apply to a producer and that nothing in this clause shall apply in so far as sale or storage for sale of paddy or rice made by or on behalf of the Government of India or on behalf of the State Government.” 7. Mr. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the accused-appellants by referring to the provisions of clause 3 of the said Order has first of all submitted that in the instant case it was incumbent on the part of PW 1 as to enquire from the appellants with regard to their dealing in paddy by purchase, sale or storage and would have also enquired whether the said paddy was so stored after purchase or was produced by them. But in the instant case by going through the deposition of PWs, it will come in light that these formalities were not observed prior to launching prosecution against them. In support of his this contention Mr. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the accused-appellants claimed himself to be fortified with reported case (1986) 2 Gauhati Law Report 347 (Abdul Latif Choudhury vs. State of Assam). In the said case it is further pointed out that though there was recovery of paddy and rice from the godown of the petitioners but because of the prosecution not proving all the ingredients of clause 3 of the Order in question the judgment of conviction and sentence to the petitioner in that case was so set aside. In all fairness, it is also pointed out that the said case under reference related of Assam Paddy and Rice Procurement (Levy and Licensing) Order, 1984 which is identical with that of the provisions contained in clause 3 of the Order, 1981. 8. It is also brought in notice that in the Challan Exhibit 4 there are cuttings and some of the words written with different ink and they throw cloud of suspicion. Because the defence version so put before the trial Court was that because of PW 1 having difference with one of the accused-appellants namely, Sultan Ahmed that this case was falsely lodged. It is also averred that the seizure relates to occurrence taking place on 23.12.81, whereas, in the prosecution report marked as Exhibit. 6 and also in the deposition of both the prosecution witnesses, that is, the Sub Inspector and the Checker of the Check Post, the date of occurrence is said to be 23.12.82 which thus gives fatal blow to the prosecution case. 9. Mr. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the accused-appellants has further argued that in the instant case the driver of the truck is not examined. 9. Mr. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the accused-appellants has further argued that in the instant case the driver of the truck is not examined. The Seizure List witness is also not examined and while preparing the Seizure List it was incumbent on the part of the Sub Inspector, Food and Civil Supplies (PW 1) has to obtain atleast the signatures of two witnesses on the Seizure List, that is, it would have been done in presence of the two independent witnesses. Attention is also drawn to clause 4 of the Order and it is pointed out that it is incorporated therein that every application for a licence under this Order shall be made to the Licensing Authority in Form I of this Order. Taking to Form I proforma, attention is also drawn that while making application for licence the applicant is expected to give the details as to how long the applicant has been trading in paddy/rice and also as to whether the applicant was a dealer. The word 'Dealer' in this Order is very much defined in clause 2 (b) which means a person engaged in any business which involves the purchase, sale or storage for sale of any paddy or rice in quantities more than 10 Quintals of paddy or rice or both taken together in a calendar day but does not include a producer. That being the position, in the instant case, Mr. Choudhury has thus emphatically argued that when the Sub Inspector, Food and Civil Supplies failed to enquire as to whether the accused-appellants had produced the paddy or it was so purchased and had even failed to enquire whether they were engaged in any such business involving purchase, sale or storage which will be so apparent by going through the deposition of PWs 1 and 2, their conviction for contravening this Order and its provisions as contained in clause 3 can not be said to have been proved by the prosecution making out a fit case for conviction and thus the impugned judgment of conviction is bad in law which be thus set aside. 10. Drawing attention to the prosecution report marked as Exhibit 6 Mr. 10. Drawing attention to the prosecution report marked as Exhibit 6 Mr. Choudhury has submitted that the sanction of the prosecution in the instant case can not be said to be a valid sanction, because while passing sanction order for prosecution the Sanctioning Authority is expected to give the details of the facts which led him to satisfy for grant of the sanction of the prosecution in a particular case. The Sanctioning Authority it is pointed out has mechanically passed the said order without giving in brief the facts of the case and that in course of trial the Sanctioning Authority is not examined as witness. In support of his this contention the learned counsel for the accused-appellants has referred to a reported case AIR 1979 SC 677 (Md Ikbal Ahmed vs. State of Andhra Pradesh). Pragraph 3 of the said judgment runs as under: “It is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that a valid sanction has been granted by the Sanctioning Authority after it was satisfied that a case for sanction has been made out constituting the offence. This should be done in two ways, either (1) by producing the original sanction which itself contains the facts constituting the offence and the ground of satisfaction and (2) by adducing evidence aliunde (sic) to show that the facts placed before the Sanctioning Authority and the satisfaction arrived by it. It is well settled that any case instituted without a proper sanction must fail, because this being a manifest defect in the prosecution, the entire proceedings are rendered void ab-initio.” In this background hence it is pointed out that since the Sanctioning Authority is not examined by the prosecution and the sanction letter does on reveal to contain the facts constituting the offence and the ground of satisfaction of the Sanctioning Authority, this cannot be said to be a valid sanction and not that score too the judgment of conviction so passed in the instant case is bad in law. 11. Lastly, thus it is summed up that because of the discrepancies detailed above which are fatal in nature, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence so passed be thus set aside. 12. Mrs. 11. Lastly, thus it is summed up that because of the discrepancies detailed above which are fatal in nature, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence so passed be thus set aside. 12. Mrs. K. Deka, the learned Public Prosecutor of Assam on the other hand has submitted that since both the accused-appellants were also located moving on the same truck with 136 bags of paddy having also a dial Ian marked as Exhibit 4 and because of their non-production of valid permit the Sub Inspector, Food and Civil Supplies had rightly seized the paddy bags. Seizure List was so prepared, sanction was so obtained and lastly the prosecution was launched. As regards the sanction order the learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that though the facts of the case are not detailed therein, but the Sanctioning Authority has stated that being satisfied after going through all relevant papers and finding prima facie case against the accused persons relating to the violation of provisions of clause 3 of the Order, the sanction for prosecution is accorded. 13. The learned Public Prosecutor has further pointed out that though only two of the witnesses are examined but they were very much present at the time of such seizure, one being the Sub Inspector of Food and Civil Supplies and the another is the Checker of the said Check Post and there is no discrepancies in their evidence. Hence the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence so passed does not require any interference and the appeal so preferred by the accused-appellants under section 12 (a) (b) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 be thus dismissed. 14. After hearing both the sides' lawyers I have carefully gone through the impugned judgment and perused the evidence oral and documentary so available in the lower Court's record so available for perusal. In the instant case I find that though such seizure was made but PW 1 and the Checker (PW 2) did not care as to enquire from the accused-appellants as to whether they were dealing in such business or as to whether the paddy in question was purchased by them for sale or was produced by them. In the instant case I find that though such seizure was made but PW 1 and the Checker (PW 2) did not care as to enquire from the accused-appellants as to whether they were dealing in such business or as to whether the paddy in question was purchased by them for sale or was produced by them. In the background of the definition of dealer so given in the said Order and also in the background of the provisions of clause 3 of the said Order in my considered opinion it was incumbents on the part of the prosecuting agency as to enquire and to satisfy themselves whether the accused-appellants were dealers, and thus required licence which could have been done prior to obtaining sanction for launching prosecution against them which has not so been done in the present case. The reported case so cited by the learned counsel for the accused-appellants (1986) Gauhati Law Report 347 (supra) has got much resemblance with the circumstances of this case. 15. Secondly, the variance in date occurring relating to the seizure is also of no less importance. Seizure is claimed on 23.12.81, whereas, the prosecution report reveals the same to be on 23.12.82 and both the PWs also relate to the occurrence taking place on 23.12.82 which is so apparent by going through their evidence. This also throws light as to how negligently the prosecution case is conducted before the learned trial Court. By the close scrutiny of Challan Exhibit 4 I also come to the conclusion that there are cutting and addition in different ink over the same. 16. As regards the point raised with regard to the valid sanction not obtained as claimed by Mr. Choudhury, after going through the sanction order, however, I find that the sanctioning authority has shown his satisfaction while according sanction after going through the relevant papers and has specified therein that there was prima facie case against the accused persons of their contravening certain provisions of the Order in question. Choudhury, after going through the sanction order, however, I find that the sanctioning authority has shown his satisfaction while according sanction after going through the relevant papers and has specified therein that there was prima facie case against the accused persons of their contravening certain provisions of the Order in question. Consequently on the grounds mentioned above I find that there is much of substance in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the accused-appellants particularly with regard to the discrepancies so coming from the mouth of the witnesses so examined and also the Checker or the Sub Inspector of Food and Civil Supplies not caring to see as to whether all the ingredients of clause 3 are met with prior to launching prosecution, I find it to be a fit case in which the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence thus require interference as to meet the ends of justice as detailed above. 17. Taking that view the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence under challenge is thus hereby set aside. 18. This criminal appeal is thus allowed.