A. K. BHATTACHARYA, J. ( 1 ) THE present appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned judge. Special Court (E. C. Act), Hooghly, in Special Court Case No. 70/1989 arising out of Dadpur P. S. Case No. 44 dated 23. 09. 1989 under section. ll) (a) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. as amended. ( 2 ) SHORTLY put, the prosecution case is that on 23. 09. 89 S. I. M. Rahaman (P. W. 1) under the supervision of Inspector A. K. Bhowmick and other DEB Officials of Hooghly had been to the Kerosene oil shop of accused/appellant Lakshmi Kanta Ghosh, and after service of notice upon him the accused/appellant produced books of accounts, sale register, stock register, cash memo book, Stock-cum-rate board, license etc. On checking the books of accounts/registers opening balance was found 4400 litres, whereas on physical verification 4600 litres of kerosene oil was found in 23 drums/barrels, and 5400 litres was shown on the Stock-cum-rate board. As the accused/appellant failed to show any satisfactory account for the said discrepancies, registers, books of accounts, kerosene oil etc. were seized under a seizure list in presence of witnesses, and the seized kerosene oil was kept in the zimma of one biswanath Ghosh (P. W. 6 ). The accused/appellant was arrested and on the basis of a complaint Dadpur P. S. Case No. 44 dated 23. 09. 89 was started. After completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted against the accused/appellant under section 7 (1) (a) (ii) of Act X of 1955 for violation of the provisions of paragraph 12 of the West Bengal kerosene Oil Control Order. 1968 and paragraph 3 (2) of the West Bengal declaration of Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodities Order. 1977. Accused/appellant, was accordingly, charged under section 7 (l) (a) (ii)of Act X, 1955. ( 3 ) THE defence case, as suggested to P. Ws. 1 to 3 and as contended by the accused during his examination under section 313 Cr. PC, is that kerosene oil was not measured by iron gauge and the weighment chart showing recovery of 4600 litres of kerosene oil is false. Stock of 5400 litres of kerosene oil was written in the Stock-cum-rate board through mistake. 1 to 3 and as contended by the accused during his examination under section 313 Cr. PC, is that kerosene oil was not measured by iron gauge and the weighment chart showing recovery of 4600 litres of kerosene oil is false. Stock of 5400 litres of kerosene oil was written in the Stock-cum-rate board through mistake. ( 4 ) SEVEN witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution, while none was examined on behalf of the defence, and after considering the facts, circumstances and materials on record, the learned Court below found the accused guilty under section 7 (l) (a) (ii) of Act X. 1955 for violation of the provisions of paragraph 3 (2) of the West Bengal declaration of Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1977, and paragraph 12 of the West Bengal Kerosene Oil Control Order, 1968, convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to suffer R. I. for three months and to pay fine of Rs. 2,. 000/- i. d. to R. I. for one month. ( 5 ) BEING aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order of conviction and sentence, the accused/appellant has preferred the present appeal. ( 6 ) ALL that now requires to be considered is whether the learned Court below was justified in passing the above order of conviction and sentence. ( 7 ) ACCORDING to the evidence of P. W. 1 S. I. M. Rahaman. on 23. 09. 89 under the supervision of Inspector A. K. Bhowmick of DEB, he along with s. I. K. C. Banerjee (P. W. 2), W/c Aruan Misra (P. W. 3) had been to the kerosene oil shop of accused Lakshmi Kanta Ghosh, and after service of notice (Ext. 4) to the accused by Sri Bhowmick. the accused produced books of accounts and other registers of the shop. On checking the said kerosene shop the quantity was found to be 4600 litres in 23 barrels, each containing 200 litres. A weighment chart (ext. 2) was prepared, and as the accused failed to account for the said discrepancy of kerosene oil. a seizure list (Ext. 1) was prepared by him in presence of witnesses. The seized kerosene oil was kept in the zimma of one Biswanath Ghosh (P. W. 6) under a Zimmanama (Ext. 3 ). A weighment chart (ext. 2) was prepared, and as the accused failed to account for the said discrepancy of kerosene oil. a seizure list (Ext. 1) was prepared by him in presence of witnesses. The seized kerosene oil was kept in the zimma of one Biswanath Ghosh (P. W. 6) under a Zimmanama (Ext. 3 ). The accused was arrested and was brought to Dadpur P. S. along with the seized registers and books of accounts and a written complaint (Ext. 5) was lodged against the accused, the seized Stock-cum-rate board (Mat Ext. I) was duly sealed and labelled [ext. 6 (a)]. He pasted labels on different items and deposited all the seized documents and registers with Dadpur P. S. The above evidence in material particulars is corroborated by P. W. 2 S. I. Krishna chandra Banerjee and P. W. 3 W/c Arura Misra. P. W. 4 S. I. Shibdas mondal. on the basis of said written complaint, started Dadpur P. S. Case no. 44 dated 23. 09. 89 against the accused. P. W. 5 Rama Prasad chakraborty, a member of local Gram Pamchayat, who was declared hostile, stated that on 23. 09. 89 when Lakshmibabu had just opened his shop and his attendant-boy was clearing the floor, a jeep stopped and asked Lakshmibabu to show the relevant papers relating to his shop. Lakshmibabu produced those papers after stating that he opened the shop just at that moment. The said officer on going through the books of accounts stated that they were not in order. As he was outside the shop he did not notice whether any kerosene oil was found or measured at the said shop. He. however, admitted his signatures on the seizure list, weighment chart, labels on Stock-cum-rate board, stock register and cash memo. He admitted that the shop of the accused was closed for three/four days due to his illness prior to the visit of the police. As per evidence of P. W. 6 Biswanath Ghosh who is the full brother of the accused and was declared hostile by the prosecution, at the time of visit of the kerosene oil shop of the accused by police in the month of September. 1989, he was called and was told that Kerosene oil was seized from the said shop, but he did not notice seizure of any kerosene oil. 1989, he was called and was told that Kerosene oil was seized from the said shop, but he did not notice seizure of any kerosene oil. He was told that he would be zimmadar of said Kerosene oil and accordingly on being asked he signed on a paper. P. W. 7 S. I. K. L. Saha on receipt of case diary from S. I. K. C. Banerjee (P. W. 2.) visited the P. O. , examined witnesses, recorded their statements and after completion of investigation submitted charge sheet against the accused under section 7 (1) (a) (ii) of Act X, 1955. ( 8 ) MR. Basu, learned counsel for the appellant at the outset, on referring to Order No. 21 dated 27. 08. 90 of the learned Court below contended that at the time of examination of the accused under section 251 cr. PC though substance of accusation for alleged violation of paragraph 3 (2) of the West Bengal Declaration of Stocks and Prices of essential Commodities Order. 1977 was not stated, he was convicted for violation the said order in addition to violation of paragraph 12 of the West Bengal Kerosone Oil Control Order, 1968, as amended, and as such the charge is defective. On referring to the evidence of P. Ws. . Mr. Basu contended that from 16. 09. 89 to 19. 09. 89 the opening balance of Kerosene oil was undisputedly 1200 litres and after adding the receipt of 3200 litres on 19. 09. 89 from Radhakrishna Oil Agency, Dhaniakhali the opening stock on that date figured as 4400 and from 20. 09. 89 to 22. 09. 89 the shop was closed due to illness of the accused, and as such there was no scope for finding 4600 litres of Kerosens oil on 23. 09. 89 after the alleged physical verification by P. W. I, and since there is no mention about the alleged weighment of Kerosene oil by iron gauge in the weighment chart (Exi. 2), no reliance should be placed upon the weighment chart which is a doubtful and suspicious document. As regards the discrepancy relating ia reflection of 5400 litres in the Stock-cum-rate board. Mr. Basu submitted that it is purely a bonqfide mistake which has been admitted by his client during examination under section 313 Cr. PC. Mr. 2), no reliance should be placed upon the weighment chart which is a doubtful and suspicious document. As regards the discrepancy relating ia reflection of 5400 litres in the Stock-cum-rate board. Mr. Basu submitted that it is purely a bonqfide mistake which has been admitted by his client during examination under section 313 Cr. PC. Mr. Sengupta, learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contended that though during examination of the accused under section 251 Cr. PC. the violation of the paragraph 3 (2) of the West bengal Declaration of Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodities order, 1977 was not mentioned, it was done during examination of the accused under section 313 Cr. PC, and as such it is cured under section 464 Cr. PC particularly when copy of the charge was given to the accused and evidence relating to the said violation was adduced on behalf of the prosecution and no prejudice was caused to the accused. Mr. Sengupta further contended that the accused during his examination under section 313 Cr. PC admitted seizure of the iron gauge/rod and kerosene and keeping of the same in the custody of his brother Biswanath Ghosh (P. W. 6), and witnesses to the seizure duly signed the labels as also seizure list, and as such there was no scope for any doubt regarding measurement of the seized kerosene oil by iron gauge. ( 9 ) BEFORE opening the discussion, the issue relating to defective charge, as pointed out by Mr. Basu, may shortly be disposed of. The basic requirement is that the charge must be so framed as to give the accused a fairly reasonable idea of the case he is to face. Sections 215 and 464 cr. PC cure every conceivable type or error and irregularity in charge that can possibly arise. The object of the charge is to give an accused notice of the matter he is charged with. If the necessary information is conveyed to him and no prejudice is caused to him because of the charges the accused cannot succeed by merely showing that the charges framed were defective, as was held in the case of Kahan Singh v. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 1971 SC 983 . If the necessary information is conveyed to him and no prejudice is caused to him because of the charges the accused cannot succeed by merely showing that the charges framed were defective, as was held in the case of Kahan Singh v. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 1971 SC 983 . In judging the question of prejudice, as of guilt, the Courts must act with the board vision and look to the substance and not to the technicalities and their main concern should be to see whether the accused had a fair trial, whether he knew what he was being tried for, whether the main facts sought to be established against him were explained to him and fairly and clearly and whether he was given a full and fair chance to defend himself, as was observed in the case of Willie Slaney v. State of M. P. , reported in air 1956 SC 116 . To say prejudice has been caused is not enough and it must also be shown in details how and why the prejudice has been caused, as was observed in the case of Sukha v. State of Rajasthan, reported in AIR 1956 SC 513 . Section 464 of the Code covers complete absence of charge and also an error, omission or irregularity in a charge including any misjoinder of charges. Where there is no charge i. e. complete absence of charge, it is for the Court to determine whether there has been a failure of justice: where there has been mere an error or omission in the charge, the Court is to consider whether the objection could and should have been raised at an earlier stage in the proceeding. In this case, as the appellant did not raise the point with reference to the alleged illegality and irregularity in the charge before the learned Court below it cannot be urged now that the omission has occasioned a failure of justice. In this connection, reference may be made to the case of Bimbadhar v. State of Orissa. reported in AIR 1956 sc 469 . Here, not only copy of charge-sheet was supplied to the accussed but also P. Ws. 1 to 3 at least adduced evidence in that regard and they were elaborately cross-examined. So, where accused knew everything that was being urged and he refuted the facts, he cannot be prejudiced. reported in AIR 1956 sc 469 . Here, not only copy of charge-sheet was supplied to the accussed but also P. Ws. 1 to 3 at least adduced evidence in that regard and they were elaborately cross-examined. So, where accused knew everything that was being urged and he refuted the facts, he cannot be prejudiced. Even where the charge was not correctly framed but it was clear from the answer accused gave under section 313 Cr. PC that he understood exactly the case against him he was not prejudiced in any way. Furthermore, the penal provision of both the violations is section 7 (1) (a) fii) of Act X. 1955. the minimum punishment for which is three months imprisonment and fine, and as such, the said omission in narrating the provision of of paragraph 3 (2) of the West Bengal declaration of Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1977 is of no aid to the defence. ( 10 ) INDUBITABLY, the opening balance of Kerosene oil as per stock register from 16. 09. 89 to 19. 09. 89 was 1200 llitres and after adding 3200 litres received by the accused on 19. 09. 89 from Radhakrishna Oil agency, Dhaniakhali, the opening stock became 4400 and it was shown as such on 20. 09. 89, as is evident from the evidence of P. W. 1. It is the specific evidence of said P. W. 1 which is buttressed by the testimony of p. Ws. 2 and 3 that after physical verification of the kerosene oil with the help of an iron gauge, 4600 litres of kerosene oil was found in 23 barrels, each barrel containing of 200 litres. The statement of an accused under section 313 Cr. PC, though not strictly evidence in the case, may be taken into consideration in judging the guilt or innocence of the accused. In the present case, it is admitted by the accused during his examination under section 313 Cr. PC. (Question No. 7) that the seized kerosene oil and the measuring iron rod were kept in the zimma of biswanath Ghosh (P. W. 6 ). The said measuring rod finds place in the seizure list (Ext. 1) as also in the Zimmanama (Ext. 3) which bears the signature of P. W. 6 who, as stated earlier, was declared hostile. P. W. 6 claims that he did not notice seizure of kerosene oil. The said measuring rod finds place in the seizure list (Ext. 1) as also in the Zimmanama (Ext. 3) which bears the signature of P. W. 6 who, as stated earlier, was declared hostile. P. W. 6 claims that he did not notice seizure of kerosene oil. He is a teacher of punian High School and so he cannot be expected to have signed the seizure list blindly. In cross-examination by defence he stated that he was not shown 4600 litres of kerosene oil as written in Ext. 2 after measurement which is very significant, as it denotes that kerosene oil was duly measured, as deposed by P. Ws. 1 to 3. No animus of those witnesses against the accused having been made out, it improbabilises the hypothesis of their false implication of the accused. The testimony of a police witness is not liable to be rejected merely because he belongs to police force if it has otherwise the characteristics of a trustworthy evidence which is well-settled. As regards P. W. 5. who too was declared hostile, he signed on almost all the important documents including weighment chart and he being a member of local Gram Panchayat cannot be expected to have signed those documents without going through the contents of the same. So. merely because it has not been mentioned in the weighment chart that kerosene oil was measured with an iron gauge/rod it is no ground for holding that kerosene oil was not measured. ( 11 ) REGARDING the discrepancy in the Stock-cum-rate board (Mat. Ext. I), it has been contended by the accused during his examination under section 313 Cr. PC that on 19. 09. 89 the stock in the stock-cum-rate board was wrongly written as 5400 litres as the light went off, but the stock as per stock register on 20. 09. 89 was shown as 4400. There is nothing to suggest in the evidence of any of the P. Ws. that light went off on 19. 09. 89. Moreover, if after receipt of 3200 litres of kerosene oil on 19. 09. 89 from Radhakrishna Oil Agency, Dhaniakhali. the opening stock on that date figured as 4400, entry of stock as 5400 litres in the stock-cum-rate board on 20. 09. 89 through inadvertence does not prima facie stand. ( 12 ) IN regard to the contention of Mr. 89. Moreover, if after receipt of 3200 litres of kerosene oil on 19. 09. 89 from Radhakrishna Oil Agency, Dhaniakhali. the opening stock on that date figured as 4400, entry of stock as 5400 litres in the stock-cum-rate board on 20. 09. 89 through inadvertence does not prima facie stand. ( 12 ) IN regard to the contention of Mr. Basu for extending the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act to the appellant as he has reached a considerable age, the holding in Negi Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, reported in 1986 Cr. LJ 1228 in worth mentioning. It was observed in the said case that it is a notorious fact that the price of essential commodities are spurting and spiralling day by day causing innumerable hardship to the poor consumes, and the ruthless hoarders and black marketers are holding the entire nation to ransom. It is to obviate and curb these mal practices on the part of the ruthless dealers that the essential Commodities Act, 1955 has been enacted along with the various order thereunder and the violation of the provisions of this type of offence in a welfare State should not be viewed with any leniency but rather the Courts should come down with heavy hand on such ruthless profiteers in order to create an atmosphere of deterrence. As such, the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act should not be extended to an accused who has been guilty of an offence under the Essential commodities Act. I am in full agreement with the above observation. Misplaced leniency and sympathy for the accused are likely to defeat the very object of the statute. So, considering the nature of the offence which concerns the society, it is inexpedient to extend the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act to the appellant. ( 13 ) IN the premises, in the light of the above discussion, there being no infirmity with the impugned order of conviction and sentence, the same do not call for any interference, and as such there being no merit in the present appeal, it be dismissed. ( 14 ) THE impugned Judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Court below are hereby affirmed. ( 15 ) THE appellant is directed to surrender before the learned Court below immediately to serve out the remaining sentence. ( 14 ) THE impugned Judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Court below are hereby affirmed. ( 15 ) THE appellant is directed to surrender before the learned Court below immediately to serve out the remaining sentence. In default, the learned Court below is directed to secure the presence of the accused in due course of law. Interim orders, if any. stand vacated. Appeal fails.