JUDGMENT : S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY, J. 1. This Criminal revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 06.08.2018 delivered in Criminal Appeal No. 1(01) of 2017 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur affirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur convicting the petitioner for committing offence punishable under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and sentencing them as follows: S. No. Name Offence Sentence Default Sentence 1. Sri. Titash Sarkar Under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of E.C. Act, 1955 R.I. for 2(two) years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- R.I. for six months 2. Sri. Dulal Sarkar The petitioners have challenged their conviction and sentence by means of filing this criminal revision petition. 2. The genesis of the prosecution case is rooted in the suo motu FIR lodged by Dipak Bhattacharjee (PW-8) at Kakraban Police Station alleging that pursuant to a tip-off received from secret source of police, he along with his accompanying police staff carried out a raid in the house of the petitioners who were reported to have stored huge quantity of ration rice (PDS rice) in their respective houses. During such raid the informant seized 12 bags of PDS rice, each bag containing 50 kg from the house of petitioner, Titash Sarkar. At the time of the said raid petitioner was not available at home. Members of his family could not offer any kind of explanation to the informant with regard to the possession of the said rice. On the same day, the informant seized 30 bags of PDS rice, each bag containing 50 KG from the house of Dulal Sarkar. Apart from said rice, 12 bottles of beer were also recovered and seized from the house of Dulal Sarkar. Petitioner Dulal Sarkar was not also available at home at the time of raid and seizure. Members of his family failed to account for such unauthorized possession of PDS rice and beer by said petitioner Dulal Sarkar. The informant (PW-8) had drawn up two separate seizure lists in presence of witnesses and then lodged the suo motu FIR at the police station. 3. Based on his FIR, Kakraban PS case No. 59 of 2014 under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) was registered for contravention of Tripura Foodstuff Dealers’ Licensing Order, 2010 and investigation of the case was taken up by the investigating agency. 4. 3. Based on his FIR, Kakraban PS case No. 59 of 2014 under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) was registered for contravention of Tripura Foodstuff Dealers’ Licensing Order, 2010 and investigation of the case was taken up by the investigating agency. 4. During investigation, Chittaranjan Das, Sub Inspector of police of Kakraban Police Station (PW-14) formally seized said PDS rice by two separate seizure lists which were initially seized by the informant police officer. After seizure, he deposited said rice bags at Kakaraban food godown pursuant to Court’s order. Thereafter he visited the crime scene and examined the witnesses who were found acquainted with the facts of the case and recorded their police statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He had also drawn hand sketch map of the crime scene indicating the material locations by a separate index. Samples were drawn from each of the seized rice bags for examination by experts to ascertain whether those were PDS rice. The expert report (Exbt.14) was later collected by him and the investigation was closed. After closure of investigation, he submitted Charge-Sheet No. 72 of 2014 dated 30.06.2014 against the petitioners for having committed offence punishable under Section 7(1)(a)(ii), E.C. Act, 1955 and Section 69 of the Tripura Excise Act. 5. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, South Tripura, Udaipur(as it was then) received the said charge-sheet and on the facts of the case took cognizance of offence punishable under Section 7(1)(a)(ii), E.C. Act, 1955 and Section 69 of Tripura Excise Act. 5. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, South Tripura, Udaipur(as it was then) received the said charge-sheet and on the facts of the case took cognizance of offence punishable under Section 7(1)(a)(ii), E.C. Act, 1955 and Section 69 of Tripura Excise Act. But the trial Court proceeded to try the case only for the offence punishable under E.C. Act, 1955 and at the commencement of trial framed the following charge against the petitioners: “That the allegation against both of you are that on 20.04.2014 at about 9.30 a.m. S.I. Dipak Bhattacherjee along with his staff on secret information conducted raid at Camper tilla under kakraban P.S. in the house of you and recovered 12 bags of rationing PDS rice per bags containing 50 kg from the house of you Titash Sarkar at about 10.05 a.m. and at about 11.25 a.m. recovered 30 bags of rationing PDS rice each containing 50 kg from the house of you Dulal Sarkar and both of you were in possession of the respective PDS rationing rice for the purpose of selling the same in the open market and both of you failed to produce any licence or any valid documents or an authority for the possession of the same and thus both of you there by violated the Public distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 and Tripura Foodstuff Dealers’ Licencing Order, 2010 and both of you thereby committed and offence punishable U/S 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and within my cognizance. And, I do hereby direct that you be tried on the said charges by this court.” Both of the petitioners pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. During trial of the case, prosecution examined as many as 20 witnesses (PW-1 to PW-20) and introduced 50 exhibited documents (Exbt.1 to Exbt.50) in order to prove the case against the petitioners. At the closure of the prosecution evidence accused petitioners were examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C. They pleaded innocence and claimed that the charge was foisted on them. They declined to adduce any evidence on their defence. 7. Among the witnesses examined by the prosecution, PW-1, Kamal Hossen, a police Constable stated at the trial that in his presence police (PW-8) seized 12 bags of PDS rice from the house of Titash Sarkar and 30 bags of PDS rice along with 12 bottles of Beer from the house of Dulal Sarkar. 7. Among the witnesses examined by the prosecution, PW-1, Kamal Hossen, a police Constable stated at the trial that in his presence police (PW-8) seized 12 bags of PDS rice from the house of Titash Sarkar and 30 bags of PDS rice along with 12 bottles of Beer from the house of Dulal Sarkar. As a witness he signed seizure list. The witness was cross-examined by the counsel of the accused. A suggestion was put to him that his statement was not correct. The PW denied the suggestion. 8. PW-2, Mahendra Kr. Nath, a Constable of Police gave same statement before the trial Court. He told that 12 bags of PDS rice each bag containing 50 kg of rice were seized from the house of petitioner, Titash Sarkar by PW-8 and on the same day 30 bags of PDS rice each bags containing 50kg were seized from the house of Dulal Sarkar along with 12 bottles of beer each bottles containing 650 ml and as a witness the PW signed the seizure list made by PW-8. While cross-examining the witness, the counsel of the accused suggested to him that he made an incorrect statement before the Court with regard to search and seizure in the house of the petitioners. Same was denied by the PW. 9. PW-3, Sri. Latib Miah; PW-4, Sri. Pulakesh Majumder; PW-5, Sri. Shiba Prasad Deb; PW-6, Smt. Chandani Sarkar and PW-7, Sri. Khokan Paul were all neighbours of the petitioners. All of them were declared hostile to the prosecution during trial. The prosecution lawyer cross-examined them. But nothing could be elucidated from them by such cross-examination in favour of the prosecution case. 10. PW-8, Dipak Bhattacharjee is the informant police officer who lodged the suo motu complaint at the police station after conducting raid in the house of the petitioners and recovered said PDS rice from their unauthorised possession. The PW stated at the trial that when he conducted raid in the house of the petitioners none of them were present in their house. Their family members were asked by the police officer (PW-8) as to how they procured the PDS rice. The said family members could not offer any explanation to police. Accordingly, the same were seized by the PW in presence of witnesses. In his cross-examination the PW stated that he was not aware as to who were the owners of the surrounding houses. The said family members could not offer any explanation to police. Accordingly, the same were seized by the PW in presence of witnesses. In his cross-examination the PW stated that he was not aware as to who were the owners of the surrounding houses. It was also stated by the witness that prior to the raid and seizure, the petitioners were unknown to the PW. Counsel of the accused suggested to the PW that his statement with regard to search and seizure was incorrect. The PW denied the suggestion. He was also re-examined by the prosecution. During such re-examination, he stated that PW-3, Latib Miah; PW-4, Sri. Pulakesh Majumder; PW-5, Sri. Shiba Prasad Deb who were declared hostile during trial were present at the time of raid, recovery and seizure of the said PDS rice from the house of the petitioners. 11. PW-9, Sunil Ch. Das, a ration dealer stated that the Officer-in-charge of Kakraban Police Station had handed over to him 42 bags of PDS rice each bag containing 50 kg on his furnishing a bond. He kept the same in his possession and furnished an undertaking that as and when required he would return the same to police. Accordingly, on the following day pursuant to a direction of the said police officer he deposited the rice bags at Kakraban food godown. During his cross-examination, counsel of the accused suggested to the PW that his statement was untrue. The PW denied the suggestion. 12. PW-10, Mahim Debbarma, a Sub-Inspector of police stated at the trial that he along with S.I. Dipak Bhattacharjee (PW-8) and the Investigating Officer namely, Chitta Ranjan Das (PW-14) carried out search operation in the house of the petitioners and seized 12 bags of PDS rice from the house of Titash Sarkar and 30 bags of PDS rice from the house of Dulal Sarkar along with 12 bottles of beer. After seizure the same were deposited at the police station. In cross-examination, he stated that the Investigating Officer did not record his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as he was a member of the police team which conducted raid in the house of the accused petitioners. Counsel appearing for the accused suggested to him that he made an incorrect statement with regard to search and seizure. The PW denied the suggestion. 13. Counsel appearing for the accused suggested to him that he made an incorrect statement with regard to search and seizure. The PW denied the suggestion. 13. PW-11, Jantu Ranjan Mandal who was a Sub Inspector of police gave similar statement at the trial who stated that in his presence 12 bags of PDS rice was seized from the house of Titash Sarkar and 30 begs of PDS rice were seized from the house of Dulal Sarkar along with 12 bottles of beer. In cross, he denied the suggestion of the defence counsel that he made a false statement before the Court. 14. PW-12, Binoy Datta and PW-13, Gautam Debnath were declared hostile to the prosecution. The counsel representing the prosecution cross-examined the witnesses. In such cross-examination nothing could be extracted from them in support of the prosecution case. There was no cross-examination of the witnesses by the defence counsel. 15. PW-14, Chitta Ranjan Das is the Investigating Officer who simply stated that after recovery of said PDS rice from the house of the petitioners, S.I. Dipak Bhattacharjee (PW-8) lodged FIR against the petitioners and thereafter the case was endorsed to him for investigation. During his investigation, the PW visited the house of the petitioners from where said PDS rice was seized and recorded the statement of the witnesses who witnessed the seizure. The PW confirmed the correctness of the statement of the witnesses recorded by him. According to the PW he correctly recorded the statement of the PWs. In his cross-examination the PW stated that during investigation, he did not identify the ration shop from where the petitioners procured the said PDS rice which was stored in their houses. 16. PW-15, Manju Singh Kalai, a Senior Technical Assistant in the office of the Deputy Director, Food, Udaipur stated at the trial that she had conducted physical analysis of the samples of rice produced before her by the Investigating Officer and confirmed that it was PDS rice. The witness identified the report submitted by her in this regard as Exbt.14. In her cross-examination she stated that she had a Degree of Bachelor of Science in Bio-science. She also stated that she had undergone in-service training. It was suggested to the PW that no rice seized by police was produced before her for physical analysis. She actually collected some rice from the ration shop of Sunil Das and submitted a fabricated report. She also stated that she had undergone in-service training. It was suggested to the PW that no rice seized by police was produced before her for physical analysis. She actually collected some rice from the ration shop of Sunil Das and submitted a fabricated report. The suggestions were denied by the PW. 17. PW-16, Biswajit Datta, a police Constable stated that he accompanied S.I. Dipak Bhattacharjee (PW-8) to the house of the petitioners when said PW-8 conducted raid in the house of the petitioners and recovered said PDS rice and beer bottles from their house. 18. PW-17, Haradhan Sarkar stated that ration shop dealer Sunil Ch. Dey was known to him and in his presence the Officer-in-charge of Kakraban police station released the seized 42 bags of PDS rice to said Sunil Ch. Dey on his furnishing a bond. 19. PW-18, Mhohammed Jashim, a police Constable, also supported the search, recovery and seizure of said PDS rice from the house of the petitioners by saying that he accompanied PW-8 Dipak Bhattacharjee at the time of such search, recovery and seizure. In his cross-examination the PW denied the suggestion of the accused that his statement made before the trial Court was incorrect. 20. PW-19, Surajit Kr. Deb stated at the trial that the Officer-in-charge of Kakraban police station released said 42 bags of PDS rice to ration shop dealer Sunil Ch. Dey on his furnishing a Zimma nama in his presence. 21. PW-20, Biswajit Debnath, did not support the prosecution case. He was declared hostile to prosecution during trial. He was also cross-examined by the counsel representing the prosecution. In cross-examination, nothing could be extracted from him in support of the prosecution case. 22. Petitioners have challenged the impugned judgment mainly on the following grounds: (i) Even though some independent witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution, they turned hostile during trial and give no evidence against the petitioners. Conviction and sentence of the petitioners based on few interested official witnesses is not sustainable. (ii) The Investigating Agency did not even investigate from which ration shop the accused petitioners brought the alleged PDS rice bags which were allegedly stored by them in their house. There is no proof that the alleged samples of PDS rice which were analysed by PW-15 were actually collected from the rice bags which were allegedly seized from the possession of the petitioners. 23. There is no proof that the alleged samples of PDS rice which were analysed by PW-15 were actually collected from the rice bags which were allegedly seized from the possession of the petitioners. 23. In the course of arguments Mr. P.K. Biswas, learned Sr. advocate appearing along with Mr. P. Majumder, advocate for the petitioners argued that two sets of evidence were produced by the prosecution in this case. One set of evidence include the neighbours who allegedly saw search and seizure conducted by the Investigating Agency in the house of the petitioners and the other set which include the official witnesses. Clearly all the neighbours turned hostile during trial and denied to have witnessed the alleged search and seizure of PDS rice from the possession of the petitioners. The set of official witnesses supported the search and seizure. According to Mr. Biswas, learned Sr. counsel, in such circumstances inevitably the petitioners would be given benefit of doubt of such contradictory evidence. In support of his contention, leaned Sr. counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Harchand Singh and Another vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1974 SC 344 wherein the Apex Court vide paragraph 11 of the judgment has held as under: “11. The function of the court in a criminal trial is to find whether the person arraigned before it as the accused is guilty of the offence with which he is charged. For this purpose the court scans the material on record to find whether there is any reliable and trustworthy evidence upon the basis of which it is possible to found the conviction of the accused and to hold that he is guilty of the offence with which the is charged. If in a case the prosecution leads two sets of evidence, each one of which contradict and strikes at the other and shows it to be unreliable, the result would necessarily be that the court would be, left with no reliable and trustworthy evidence upon which the conviction of the accused might be based. Inevitably, the accused would have the benefit of such a situation.” 24. It is further contended by the counsel of the petitioners that before the alleged seizure of PDS rice from the possession of the petitioners, no FIR was lodged against them. According to Mr. Biswas, learned Sr. Inevitably, the accused would have the benefit of such a situation.” 24. It is further contended by the counsel of the petitioners that before the alleged seizure of PDS rice from the possession of the petitioners, no FIR was lodged against them. According to Mr. Biswas, learned Sr. advocate such seizure is permissible only when it is done in the course of investigation of an FIR. In support of his contention, Mr. Biswas has relied on the decision of the Gauhati High Court in Chandika Sarma vs. State of Assam and Another, (2002) 1 Gau. L.R. 508 wherein the Gauhati High Court vide paragraph 7 of the judgment has held as under: “7. The police cannot take into possession any articles unless the same are taken into possession during the course of investigation of the FIR. As observed above, from the record it is not possible to come to conclusion that the articles were seized in connection with some FIR against the petitioner, or anybody else. The seizure of the articles, in my considered opinion, seems to be without any authority of law.” 25. Mr. Ratan Datta, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submits that huge quantity of PDS rice was seized from the possession of the petitioners which was hoarded by them for the purpose of selling in open market at higher rate in violation of the Tripura Foodstuff Dealers’ Licensing Order, 2010. Prosecution led convincing evidence before the trial Court on the basis of which the trial Court held the petitioners guilty and punished them. Their conviction and sentence have also been upheld by the Sessions Judge by a detailed judgment after meticulous re-assessment of evidence. According to Mr. Datta, learned Public Prosecutor, in these circumstances there is no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below. Leaned counsel therefore, urges the Court for dismissal of the revision petition. 26. The trial Court has convicted and sentenced the petitioners under Section 7(1)(a)(ii), E.C. Act, 1955 for violation of Tripura Foodstuff Dealers’ Licensing Order, 2010. Section 7(1)(a)(ii), E.C. Act, 1955 reads as under: “7. Leaned counsel therefore, urges the Court for dismissal of the revision petition. 26. The trial Court has convicted and sentenced the petitioners under Section 7(1)(a)(ii), E.C. Act, 1955 for violation of Tripura Foodstuff Dealers’ Licensing Order, 2010. Section 7(1)(a)(ii), E.C. Act, 1955 reads as under: “7. Penalties - (1) If any person contravenes any order made under section 3: (a) he shall be punishable: (i) *** *** *** *** *** (ii) in the case of any other order, with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine: Provided that the court may, for any adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than three months.” 27. Penalty provided under the said section is imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. The proviso to sub-clause (ii) of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 7 provides that for adequate and special reasons Court may also impose sentence of imprisonment for a term less than three months. In the present case, the petitioners have been convicted to R.I for two years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each with default stipulation. 28. From a bare reading of Section 7 of E.C. Act, 1955 it is clear that the said section provides punishment for violation of order made under Section 3 of the Act. Section 3 of the E.C. Act, 1955 empowers the Central Government to make orders for control of production, supply, distribution etc. of essential commodities. In the present context it has been alleged that the petitioners have violated the Tripura Foodstuff Dealers’ Licensing Order, 2010 made under Section 3 of the E.C. Act and therefore, they have been convicted and punished under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the E.C. Act, 1955. 29. The Tripura Foodstuff Dealers’ Licensing Order, 2010 was made by the Central Government which came into effect from the date of its publication in official gazette on 04.02.2010 and various amendments were made by the Central Government in the said order from time to time. 29. The Tripura Foodstuff Dealers’ Licensing Order, 2010 was made by the Central Government which came into effect from the date of its publication in official gazette on 04.02.2010 and various amendments were made by the Central Government in the said order from time to time. Under this order, only a dealer licensed under the said order can store foodstuff including rice up to a certain quantity prescribed under this order for the purpose of carrying on business in respect of such foodstuff as a licensed dealer. Storage of foodstuff in violation of the said order is made punishable under the E.C. Act. Order 11 of the said order has made provisions with regard to powers of entry, search and seizure when any contravention of any provisions of this order is reported. Order 11 of Tripura Foodstuff Dealers’ Licensing Order, 2010 has authorised all Police Officers not below the rank of Sub-Inspector to enter, inspect or break open and search any place or premises, vehicle or vessel in which he has reason to believe that contravention of the provisions of this order or conditions of licences issued under the said order has taken place. 30. Therefore, the search operation in the house premises of the petitioners carried out by Sri. Dipak Bhattacharjee, Sub-Inspector of Police (PW-8) was done in accordance with the law laid down under order 11 of the Tripura Foodstuff Dealers’ Licensing Order, 2010. No illegality has been committed by conducting such search operation in the house premises of the petitioners. 31. Evidently, PW-8 received an information from secret source on 20.4.2014 that the petitioners stored huge quantity of PDS rice in their house premises in contravention of Tripura Foodstuff Dealers’ Licensing Order, 2010 and proceeded to conduct search and seizure in the said house premises of the petitioners pursuant to the direction of the Officer-in-charge of his police station vide G.D. Entry No. 11 of 2014 dated 20.04.2014. The said search operation was conducted in presence of witnesses and during such search operation 30 bags of PDS rice each bag containing 50 kg along with 12 beer bottles each bottles containing 650ml were recovered and seized from the house premises of accused petitioner Dulal Sarkar and 12 bags of such PDS rice each bag containing 50 KG were also recovered from the adjacent house of Titash Sarkar. The said police officer also prepared seizure list at the spot. Samples of the seized rice were drawn and the same were physically analysed by Smt. Manju Singh Kalai (PW-15), a technical expert of the Food Department who opined that the said samples were drawn from PDS rice. The said witnesses were subjected to lengthy cross-examination on behalf of the accused but except throwing some suggestion to them petitioners could not demolish their evidence to any extent. Even though some of the witnesses did not support the prosecution case with regard to search and seizure and they were declared hostile during trial, it does not affect the prosecution case. Even without their evidence the fact that said PDS rice was recovered from the house premises of the petitioners stand established beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt. There is no reason to disbelieve the official witnesses including police staff and staff of the Food and Civil Supplies Department. It is no case of the petitioners that at any point of time have developed any hostility towards the petitioners or there was any other reason for them to implicate the petitioners in a false case. During trial, petitioners never claimed that the house premises from where said PDS rice were seized by PW-8 did not belong to them. They did not also come out without any explanation as to how and why such huge quantity of PDS rice were stored in their house. In these circumstances the charge against them that they stored the Said PDS rice in their houses in contravention of Tripura Foodstuff Dealers’ Licensing Order, 2010 stand clearly established against them. 32. The factual context of Harchand Singh (supra) which has been relied upon by learned counsel of the petitioners is completely distinguishable from the factual background of the present case. In Harchand Singh, the appellants were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC which was challenged by them before the Apex Court. The Apex Court found that there were two sets of evidence in the case which contradicted each other. In Harchand Singh, the appellants were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC which was challenged by them before the Apex Court. The Apex Court found that there were two sets of evidence in the case which contradicted each other. In that circumstances, the Apex Court held that if in a case prosecution leads two sets of evidence, each one of which contradicts and strikes at the other and shows it to be unreliable, the result would necessarily be that the Court would be left with no reliable and trustworthy evidence upon which the conviction of the accused might be based. Inevitably, the accused would have the benefit of such a situation. The facts of the two cases being completely distinguishable, petitioners cannot derive any benefit from the said decision. 33. Similarly, in the case of Chandika Sarma (supra) the Gauhati High Court in a completely different context observed that police cannot take into possession any article unless the same are taken to possession during the course of investigation of an FIR. The factual backgrounds of the present case being completely different, the said observation of the Gauhati High Court does not apply to this case. 34. As discussed, the witnesses who were declared hostile by the prosecution gave no evidence at all. The petitioners could not also elucidate any statement from them in their favour. In these circumstances, the two sets of evidence theory expounded by the petitioners has no application in this case. 35. The judgments of the Courts below are based on proper appreciation of evidence and therefore, in so far as the conviction of the petitioners is concerned, this Court finds no reason to interfere with their findings. 36. In so far as the sentence is concerned, this Court having considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence, punishment thereof, the status and antecedents of the accused is of the view that sentence awarded to them should be modified. Accordingly, the sentence is reduced to S.I. for six months with fine of Rs. 5000/- each and I.D. to S.I. for 15 days each. Period of detention already suffered by them, if any, shall be set off against the term of imprisonment. 37. Accordingly, the sentence is reduced to S.I. for six months with fine of Rs. 5000/- each and I.D. to S.I. for 15 days each. Period of detention already suffered by them, if any, shall be set off against the term of imprisonment. 37. The petitioners are directed to surrender before the trial Court within two months from today to suffer the sentence failing with trial Court shall take steps, in accordance with law, to make them suffer the sentence. 38. In the result, the criminal revision petition is partly allowed and the case is disposed of accordingly. Bail bond stands discharged. 39. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.