Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Shampa Dutt Paul, J.
Amitava Roy Chowdhury - Appellant
Versus
State Of West Bengal - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 59 of 2020
Decided On : 20-12-2022
Essential Commodities Act - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - 7(1)(a)(ii) Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - [Section 7(1)(a)(ii)] - The judgment discusses the interpretation of Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and its application to the case. It highlights the legal provisions related to contravention of orders made under Section 3, the presumption of guilty mind, and the burden of proof on the accused to rebut the presumption. The court emphasizes the absence of mens rea and the necessity of prima facie proof of the offence. The judgment also refers to a chemical examination report supporting the case of the accused and the legal principles established in previous cases to support its decision to quash the criminal proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a relative of one of the partners of a petrol pump, was charged under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for an incident involving the supply of diesel instead of petrol to customers. The petitioner argued that the charge was unfounded as he had no connection to the petrol pump's business and the incident was a result of a mistake. The chemical examination report supported the petitioner's case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the charge against the petitioner was baseless and that there was no evidence to constitute an offence under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. It concluded that continuing the criminal case would be unfair and contrary to the interest of justice, and therefore, quashed the proceedings.
Issues: The issues involved the unfounded charge against the petitioner under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the absence of mens rea, and the necessity of prima facie proof of the offence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the absence of mens rea and the lack of evidence to constitute an offence under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. It also considered the legal principles established in previous cases, the presumption of guilty mind, and the burden of proof on the accused to rebut the presumption.
Final Decision: The revisional application was allowed, and the criminal proceedings under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 were quashed in respect of all three accused persons charge sheeted.
JUDGMENT
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J. - The present revision is praying for quashing of G.R. No. 2099/2018 arising out of Barasat P.S. Case No. 436/18 dated 19.06.2018 U/s-7(1)(a)(ii) Essential Commodities Act, 1955 pending before the Learned First Judicial Magistrate at Barasat, on basis of written complaint made by one Ankit Mukherjee, son of Madan Mukherjee. The said Barasat P.S. Case No. 436/18 dated 19.06.2018 was started against the petitioner on 19.06.2018. The complainant purchased petrol for his motor cycle from Rathtala Service Station, Petrol Pump, on Jessore Road under Police Station Barasat. After such purchase of the petrol he found that his motor cycle was disturbing and stopped functioning. He then went to the said petrol pump and found that many people had gathered there with their motor cycle complaining that the petrol pump authority might have supplied petrol mixed with other chemicals.
2. The petitioner a relative of one of the partners of the petrol pump who was present at the relevant time was arrested by the police and taken into custody, though the petitioner is neither owner of the petrol pump nor an employee thereof nor connected with the said business in any way.
3. On investigation it revealed that while supplying product from tanker truck No. WB73D3571 on 19.06.2018 it unloaded 4 KL diesel in petrol tank of the concerned petrol pump by mistake therefore the allegation against the petitioner or anybody else in this regard is baseless. It further revealed from the said report that the petitioner is only a relative of one of the partners of the petrol pump and was present at the relevant time in the petrol pump having no nexus with retail selling and/or business of the said petrol pump.
4. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the charge sheet filed against the petitioner is on the basis of an unfounded complaint and the petitioner is being harassed unnecessarily for no fault on his part. Therefore it is clear that the petitioner has/had committed no offence as alleged. Thus the prayer for quashing.
5. Mr. Gopal Chandra Ghosh, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the said F.I. R. and charge sheet are on the very face mere abuse of the process of the law so far the petitioner is concerned and is liable to be quashed. The petitioner being not connected with the said petrol pump either being the owner or employee cannot be harassed unnecessarily. The petitioner has been charge sheeted without any prima facie proof of any offence against him. From facts and circumstances of the case the charge framed against the alleged accused/petitioner under Section 7(1)(A)(ii0 Essential Commodities Act, 1955 has no basis. Accordingly, the same should be quashed. The impugned proceeding is otherwise bad in law and is liable to quashed /set aside.
6. Mr. Arijit Ganguly, Learned Counsel for the State has produced an attested copy of the case dairy.
7. The Seizure list therein shows that the disputed Petroleum Products was seized.
The Result of Chemical examination shows that the examiner has given the opinion as 'on examination it is opined that the oily liquids contained in the exhibits marked as 'A' and 'B1' could be detected identical mixed petroleum product instead of petrol'.
The said chemical examination report clearly notes 'identical mixed petroleum product instead of petrol.'
8. One of the grounds of defence of the petitioner is that the oil tanker containing diesel poured the same in a petrol tank by mistake, which inevitably and unintentionally without knowledge was supplied to the petrol vehicle's causing disturbance in their functioning.
9. Comprehensive coverage in an insurance policy may cover issues from contaminated fuel, (Misfuelling) making it a case of an accident (mistake).
10. The petitioner /accused has been shown as 'Authority of Rathtala Service Station' which he is not as partnership agreement in respect of 'Rathtala Service Station' in respect of share holdings in the firm is Smt. Aloka Pa
The central legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of prima facie proof of the offence, the absence of mens rea, and the burden of proof on the accused to rebut the presumption of g....
Proof beyond reasonable doubt is required for conviction under the Essential Commodities Act, and mere assumptions or procedural lapses invalidate the prosecution's case.
Partners in a firm are jointly responsible for the activities within the partnership and the liabilities arising from such activities.
Convictions under the Essential Commodities Act require proof of mens rea; minor violations without intentional wrongdoing should be treated leniently, potentially allowing the benefit of probation.
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
