JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, under E.C. Act, Coochbehar in Special E.C.G.R. Case No. 14/84 for an offence under Section 7(i)(a) (ii) the said Act. The learned Judge has sentenced the appellant to suffer R.I. for two years. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that the complainant (P.W.1) visited the grocery shop of the appellant on 20.10.83 at his village shop where the appellant was found selling rice to customers. On demand by the complainant, Inspector of Food & Supply Deptt. of the State Government, its appellant could nor produce any valid licence or any registration certificate for dealing in rice. The complainant seized two bags of rice weighing 1 quintal 48 kgs. 300 gms. under a seizure list duly attested by witnesses. Thereafter, a complaint was lodged at Sitai P.S. upon which Sitai P.S. Case No.6 dated 21.10.83 was started. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the E.C. Act for violation of the West Bengal Rice and Paddy (Licensing and Control), 1967. Charge was accordingly framed to which the appellant pleaded not guilty. Upon trial, the learned Court below has found the appellant guilty of the offence charged and has been pleased to convict him and to sentence him as stated above. 3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of conviction and sentence, the appellant has come before this Court in appeal. The main contention of the appellant is that the learned trial Judge failed to consider the serious infirmity of the prosecution case and that the learned Judge failed to appreciate the evidence properly and hence the impugned judgment is not sustainable in law. 4. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that out of the three witnesses examined on the prosecution side only one (P.W.1) has supported the prosecution case. Other two witnesses have not supported the prosecution version. These witnesses were declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution. But as the I.O. of the case could not be produced as a witness, therefore, the relevant portions of the statements made by the witnesses before the I.O. could not be proved. Therefore, there was nothing before the learned Court below that P.W.2 and P.W.3 gave a different version during trial in contradiction to the statement made during investigation. But as the I.O. of the case could not be produced as a witness, therefore, the relevant portions of the statements made by the witnesses before the I.O. could not be proved. Therefore, there was nothing before the learned Court below that P.W.2 and P.W.3 gave a different version during trial in contradiction to the statement made during investigation. As a result, unless there was cogent reason their evidence could not be ignored by the learned Court. Shri Subal Das (P.W.2) has stated that P.W.1 (Inspector Gajendra Nath Burman) seized paddy in his presence and he put his signature as a witness thereon. According to him, two bags of rice were taken from the rooms of the father and of the brother of the appellant. The bags were brought into the shop of the appellant which was the front verandah of the house with connections for going into the rooms. The signature of P.W.2 on the seizure-list is marked Extn. 1/2. In cross-examination by the defence this witness has stated that the appellant, his brother and his father lived in separately in 3 separate rooms in the house. The witness is the next door neighbour of the appellant. He never sold the appellant selling rice. 5. Hanif Mian (P.W.3) is a seizure-list witness. His signature has been marked at Extn. 1/3 on the seizure-list. He has said more or less the same thing as P.W.2. He has stated the house of the appellant is just at the backside of the shop. He never saw the appellant selling rice. 6. The Food Inspector (P.W.1) has given solid support to the prosecution case. He has stated that he did not take down the names of the customers of rice. 7. The learned state Advocate defending the judgment has submitted that the learned Judge has for good reasons disbelieved the P.W.2 and P.W.3 as gained over and has relying upon the sale testimony of the P.W.1 found the charge had been established. There is nothing wrong in finding a person guilty of an offence relying upon the testimony of a single witness. if the same is reliable. 8. From a consideration of the submission made by the learned Lawyer of both sides as also of the facts. There is nothing wrong in finding a person guilty of an offence relying upon the testimony of a single witness. if the same is reliable. 8. From a consideration of the submission made by the learned Lawyer of both sides as also of the facts. circumstances and the probabilities of the case, if appears that the reason given by the learned Judge for disbelieving the seizure-list witnesses who are also witnesses to the occurrence is arbitrary as it is not based on any material as second. The learned Judge has commented that these witnesses were gained over by the appellant. But there is no material on which this conclusion can be drawn. Though the witnesses were declared hostile by the prosecution. There is nothing to show that they made any contradictory statement before the I.O. A conclusion arrived at by a judicial forum without any material for arriving at the conclusion is perverse. Before the learned Judge, the evidence of P.W.1 fully supported the prosecution case. The evidence of P.W.3 was to the effect that the appellant was not selling rice at all and this seized rice was taken from the rooms of the brother and the father of the appellant lying adjacent to the shop. The learned Judge disbelieving the P.W.3 could certainly come to the view that credence should be best to the evidence of P.W.1 and relying upon it, he could find the accused appellant guilty. But he should give reasons for discarding the evidence of P.W.2 & P.W.3. But the reason given by the learned Judge for disbelieving P.W.2 & P.W.3 is perverse. So the impugned judgment suffers from non-consideration of the relevant evidence on the most crucial question in the case. It is true that P.W.1 had no ominus to depose falsely against the accused appellant. He went to the venue of the alleged offence in course of his official duty. So this is a good consideration for giving due weight to his version while appreciating the evidence. But due consideration has to be given to the entire gamut of evidence, P.W.2 & P.W.3 have no axe to gried against P.W.1. So they cannot be presumed to have any bias against the prosecution case. So this is a good consideration for giving due weight to his version while appreciating the evidence. But due consideration has to be given to the entire gamut of evidence, P.W.2 & P.W.3 have no axe to gried against P.W.1. So they cannot be presumed to have any bias against the prosecution case. If there are two versions of the same incident of seizure of rice which is at the focal point of the alleged offence and neither version can be discarded as untenable, then the accused appellant should get the benefit. So if has not been proved without any shade of doubt that the appellant was selling rice at his shop-room on the fateful day or that there was a stock of rice kept in his shop no one has come to say that he purchased rice from the shop of the accused appellant though their names could be ascertained easily. For the reasons given above, the impugned judgment is highly vulnerable. The accused appellant was clearly entitled to benefit of doubt. In the result, the appeal succeeds. It is accordingly allowed. The order of conviction or sentence is set aside. The appellant is acquitted from the case. He is discharged from his bond at once.