Back
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE
Nemai Chandra Majumder – Appellant
Versus
State Of West Bengal – Respondent
JUDGMENT
ananda Kumar Mukherjee, J. - This appeal has been filed by the convict appellant under section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure assailing the judgment and order dated 15.05.1984 passed by Learned Judge, Special Court (Essential Commodities act), Nadia, Krishnanagar in E.C. Case No. 10 of 1984, wherein the appellant was convicted for the offence under section 7(1)(a)(i) of the Essential Commodities act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 days and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 15 days and forfeiture of the grocery articles seized from the petitioner's shop.
2. The fact of the case in brief is that on 06.02.1984 one Harendra Kumar Bose, DEO, Karimpur accompanied by police held a raid and search of the grocery shop of the appellant at Debnathpur, P.S. Tehatta, District- Nadia and seized 560 kgs. of salt, 40 kgs. of flour, 40 kgs. of atta, 15 kgs. of mung dal, 15 kgs. of mustard oil. The Search and seizure was conducted without disclosing any reason to the appellant. Police Officer also arrested the petitioner.
3. a complaint was lodged by Harendra Kumar Bose/D.E.O against the appellant, alleging that the accused did
The central legal point established in the judgment is the violation of the Essential Commodities Act and the West Bengal Declaration of stocks and prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1977, due to....
Strict adherence to statutory requirements under the Essential Commodities Act is essential for lawful operation, and failure to comply can lead to conviction.
Proof beyond reasonable doubt is required for conviction under the Essential Commodities Act, and mere assumptions or procedural lapses invalidate the prosecution's case.
Prosecution must establish seizure of commodities with clear evidence; failure to weigh goods and inconsistent witness testimonies negate conviction under Essential Commodities Act.
Burden of proof on the accused to explain possession of essential commodities; conviction set aside due to doubt in prosecution's case regarding ownership.
Reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case and the lack of conclusive evidence led to the acquittal of the appellant.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
