Judgment B.N.P.Singh, J. 1. The sole appellant suffered conviction under Sec. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, on being tried in G.R. Case No. 285 of 1989 and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for sixmonths. 2. The facts of the case are that Shri Bashishta Narain Singh. Officer In-charge of Parihar Police Station. in course of patrolling duty with Shri Baidyanath Singh (PW 5) on receipt of secret information that transportation of kerosene oil was being made from a bus destined for Bhiswa Bazar, he along with Baidyanath Singh seized the bus bearing registeration No. BRF 5418, got it stopped in village Suki Musharnia and. on search, noticed four big tins containing 64 litres of kerosene oil kept in four cartons under the seal and also six tins were found open containing 96 litres of kerosene oil in each. It was alleged that on inquiry, the appellants claimed two tins of kerosene oil of his own who was apprehended pursuant to which seizure memo was prepared by him in presence of two independent witnesses a copy of which was made over to the appellant. The alleged seizure of kerosene oil was shown to have been made by the Police Officer, as these commodities were being carried to Nepal Territory for sale in black market. and on these facts of the case, first, information report was drawn up at Parihar Police Station, pursuant to which, investigation commenced. In process of collection of evidence during investigation, said Bashishta Narain Singh recorded statement of witnesses, got seized commodity sold sale proceeds of which was deposited in Government accounts and on conclusion of investigation laid charge sheet before the Court and it is how the appellant was put on trial. When the substance of accusations was explained to the appellants on that occasion too and when his statement was recorded by the trial Court under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant ascribed his false implication in the proceeding. 3. In the eventual trial that commenced, the prosecution examined altogether five witnesses which include Shri Bashishtha Narain Singh. Reporting Officer (PW 4). Shri Baidyanath Singh (PW 5), who stated to have accompanied PW 4 during the raid which led to seizure of ten tins of kerosene oil from the bus allegedly that of the appellant. The prosecution also examined Ram Pavitra Thakur (PW 1). Reporting Officer (PW 4). Shri Baidyanath Singh (PW 5), who stated to have accompanied PW 4 during the raid which led to seizure of ten tins of kerosene oil from the bus allegedly that of the appellant. The prosecution also examined Ram Pavitra Thakur (PW 1). Rajendra Thakur (PW 2) and Ram Snehi Thakur (PW 3). 4. Now coming to the evidences of the witnesses, on strength of which finding of guilt was recorded by the trial Court against the appellant, it is apt to discuss the merit of the evidence of the individual witnesses and one would find Bashishta Narain Singh (PW 4) reiterating his early version which he rendered before the commencement of investigation about interception of bus bearing No. BRF 5418 which led to seizure of ten tins of kerosene oil out of which two tins were claimed by the appellant. Narration more or less in similar terms were made by Baidyanath Singh (PW 5) who stated to have accompanied Bashishta Narain Singh in course of raid of the vehicle which eventually led to seizure of ten tins of kerosene oil. Ram Pavitra Thakur (PW 1), Rajendra Thakur (PW 2), and Ram Sanehi Thakur (PW 3) stated about seizure of ten tins of kerosene oil from the bus in question by the Police Officer. Though seizure of incriminating articles are said to have been made also in presence of PW 1, he did not claim seizure in his presence and if his evidence is taken to be true on its face value he noticed ten tins of kerosene oil kept on the ground. He did not notice as to who had brought ten tins of kerosene oil from the bus. Though PWs 2 and 3 claimed seizure of kerosene oil, they did not claim to have gone through the contents of the seizure memo and. that apart they did not explicitly suggest about seizure of kerosene oil from possession of the appellants. Even from the tenor of the evidence of Bashishtha Narain Singh (PW 4) and Baidya Nath Singh (PW 5), no inference could be drawn about conscious possession of the incriminating object which were seized from the vehicle by the Police Officer, though the Police Officer was stating that the appellant claimed two tins of kerosene oil out of 10. which were seized by them. which were seized by them. This is all the evidence that has been adduced on behalf of the State and the trial. Court on appreciation of evidences of these witnesses, while negativing contentions raised on behalf of the appellant rendered verdict of guilt finding appellant guilty under Sec. 7 of the E.C. Act and sentenced him in the manner stated above. 5. Contentions are raised on behalf of the appellant that though allegations were attributed to the appellant about carrying ten tins of kerosene oil for their sale in Nepal territory, which was allegedly seized from a vehicle in which a number of passengers were traveling, there has been no good and cogent evidence to suggest the appellant to be the owner of the incriminating articles and it is urged that apart from some bald statement of one Police Officer that the appellant claimed two tins of kerosene oil, there was no other evidence to show proximity of the appellant with them. As for credibility of PWs 1, 2 and 3, learned counsel would urge that considering their evidence to be true on their face value no inference could have been drawn about seizure of ten tins of kerosene oil from conscious possession of the appellants and merely because the appellant was made to put his signature on the seizure memo, no attribution can possibly be made to the appellant, for which there was no good evidence. 6. The trial Court while recording verdict of guilt against the appellant, it seems was obsessed with the view that the witnesses who were examined by the State had no animosity with the appellant and less said is better that this element cannot be a ground for recording conviction in absence of good and cogent evidence. Even though there was no good evidence on record suggesting seizure of ten tins of kerosene oil from conscious possession of the appellant a finding on that score was recorded by the trail Court. Conclusion of guilt appears to have been drawn by the trial Court also on the strength of Exhibits which are seizure memo that these exhibits fully support the allegation under Sec. 7 of the EC Act against the appellant. Added to these infirmities, though there was evidence of the Police Officer that driver and khalasi of the bus were examined by him, they were not examined at trial. Added to these infirmities, though there was evidence of the Police Officer that driver and khalasi of the bus were examined by him, they were not examined at trial. On the ground of this legal infirmity that has crept in the prosecution case, this fact cannot remain unnoticed that even though the finding of guilt was recorded against the appellant for violation of terms and conditions of Sec. 3 of the EC Act, nowhere evidence was led in that regard too for violation of which control orders the appellant has been prosecuted and. that apart, evidence of the two Police Officers that the kerosene oil was being carried to Nepal territory for sale in black market was merely on assumption for which there was no good evidence and reliance on this score can be placed on a decision of the Apex Court of the land reported in Mallei Yadav and another V/s. State of Bihar wherein observations were made by the Apex Court that even when there is merely preparation on the part of the accused to commit the offence, yet there would be presumption that the accused might have changed their mind and not have proceeded further in their journey and in this view of the matter prosecution case about movement of kerosene oil in question with an object to carry it to Nepal territory was un-meritted, as simple movement of goods would not ipso facto raise a presumption that movement was not for any other destination but to. Nepal territory. The other contention raised at Bar on behalf of the appellant was that the prosecution was launched against the appellant in the year 1989 and since then he has suffered agony of criminal trial for about 12 years. 7. Regard being had to the evidences placed on record which suffer from a number of serious infirmities, I find that the finding recorded by the trial Court was not sustainable in law and it is accordingly set aside. The appellant is accordingly acquitted of the charges and is discharged from the liability of the bail bonds. This appeal accordingly succeeds.