Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Cal) 471

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Shampa Dutt Paul, J.
Tapan Kumar Das - Appellant
Versus
State Of West Bengal - Respondent
CRA 445 of 1988
Decided On : 04-08-2022

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Abhra Mukherjee, Mr. Sauradeep Dutta, for the Appellant; Mr. Narayan Prasad Agarwal, Ms. Manisha Sharma, for the Respondent

The judgment established that the failure to maintain the stock register was not justified by the appellant's illness, and the prosecution failed to prove intentional contravention of the law. Additionally, the judgment highlighted the decontrolling of non-levy cement by the Central Government, leading to the conclusion that the appellant should not have been prosecuted and convicted.

Headnote:
Essential Commodities Act - Conviction under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) for contravention of para 5(2) of West Bengal Licensing of Dealers of Cement and Distribution of Levy Cement Order, 1982 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Section 7(1)(a)(ii); West Bengal Licensing of Dealers of Cement and Distribution of Levy Cement Order, 1982, para 5(2)
Fact of the Case:

The appellant, a licensed non-levy cement dealer, was convicted under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act for contravention of para 5(2) of the West Bengal Licensing of Dealers of Cement and Distribution of Levy Cement Order, 1982. The appellant was found guilty for not maintaining the stock register as required by the law.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the appellant's illness did not justify the failure to maintain the stock register, as business was conducted through an employee and the appellant informed the authorities about the arrival of cement. The court also considered the decontrolling of non-levy cement by the Central Government and concluded that the appellant should not have been prosecuted and convicted.
Issues: The issues revolved around the appellant's failure to maintain the stock register, the impact of the appellant's illness on his business operations, and the applicability of the law to non-levy cement dealers in light of the decontrolling by the Central Government.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant's failure to maintain the stock register was not justified by his illness, and the prosecution failed to prove the intentional contravention of the law. The court also considered the decontrolling of non-levy cement by the Central Government and concluded that the appellant should not have been prosecuted and convicted.
Final Decision: The conviction and sentencing of the appellant were set aside, and the appellant was discharged from the bail bond. The judgment was sent down to the trial court, and an urgent certified copy of the judgment was to be supplied.

JUDGMENT

Shampa Dutt (Paul), J. - The appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 27.09.1988 passed by the Ld. Judge, Special Court (E.C. Act) Tamluk, Midnapore in T.R. No. 15 of 1987 (E.G.R.10/87 arising out of Sutahata P.S. Case No. 2 (6) 87) convicting the appellant under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act for contravention of the provision of para 5 (2) of the West Bengal Licensing of Dealers of Cement and Distribution of Levy Cement Order, 1982 and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month more.

2. Prosecution case against the appellant is as follows:-

The appellant is a licensed non-levy cement dealer of Rajarampur, P.S. Sutahata. On 05.06.1987 at about 5 P.M. in the afternoon, PW 1 and members of his group visited and inspected the cement godown of the appellant, Tapan Kumar Das at Rajarampur, P.S. Sutahata and found 281 bags of cement in stock. A stock register (Exhibit 2), a sale register (Exhibit 3), printed cash memo book (Exhibit 4) and a challan (Exhibit 8) were produced by the appellant. It appears from the Challan (Exhibit 8), that on 30.05.1987, the appellant received and stored 240 bags of non-levy cement from Durgapur Cement works, Durgapur-3. The appellant allegedly maintained the stock register upon 31.05.1987, sale register upto 26.05.1987 and did not make any entry of the receipt of 240 bags of cement from Durgapur works in his stock- register nor informed about the arrival of the said stock of cement to the licensing authority. As such the accused was prosecuted for two offences each under Section 7 (1) (a) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act for contravention of the provisions of para 5(1) and 5(2) of the West Bengal Licensing of Dealers of Cement and Distribution of Levy Cement Order, 1982.

3. The appellant was found not guilty (thus acquitted) for contravention of the provision of para 5(1) of West Bengal Licensing of Dealers of Cement and Distribution of Levy Cement Order, 1982, but was found guilty (thus convicted) for contravention of the provision of para 5(2) of the West Bengal Licensing of Dealers of Cement and Distribution of Levy Cement Order, 1982.

4. Appellant (defence case) Ld. Lawyer for the appellant Mr. Abhra Mukherjee, submits that the appeal has been filed on the ground that the appellant had been charged for two offences under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act for contravention of the provisions of para 5(1) and 5(2) of the West Bengal Licensing of Dealers of Cement and Distribution of Levy Cement Order, 1982, but was convicted only under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act for contravention of the provision of para 5 (2) of the West Bengal Licensing of Dealers of Cement and Distribution of Levy Cement Order, 1982. The defence of the appellant is innocence (no mens rea) and that due to his illness he could not maintain the stock register (Exhibit 2). Trial Court came to the finding that the accused did not maintain the said stock register from 01.06.1987 to 04.06.1987. The defence of the accused was that he was ill and he had reported the matter of his illness to Mr. Maity, the complainant (PW 1).

5. The Trial Court held that from the evidence on record it was proved that the appellant conducted his business during that period of his illness through an employee and as such he should have maintained the said register also on those days. It was also proved that on 03.06.1987 the appellant sent a messenger to Sub-divisional Controller, Food and Supplies, Tamluk, informing him (Exhibit B) about the arrival of 240 bags of cement from Durgapur works Ltd. and as such he should have maintained the stock register marked Exhibit 2 for the period from 01.06.1987 to 04.06.1987 (four days). Further finding of the Trial Court is that Exhibit A series are hand written cash memos issued by the appellant (through his employee) a