Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS
Daibakinandan Ghosh – Appellant
Versus
State Of West Bengal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS, J.
1. This is an appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Section 12 AB of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 against the judgement and order dated 31.3.1992 passed by the Judge, Special Court (E.C) at Malda in Special Court case no. 49 of 1990 whereby the Learned Special Court passed the order of conviction against the present appellant and directed each of the convict to suffer sentence of R.I for three months and to pay a fine of ₹250 i.e to suffer R.I for further one month on each of the two counts of the offence punishable under Section 7 (1) (a)(ii) of Act X of 1955.
2. The facts of the case in a nut shell is that on 25.10.19 at 4.55 P.M at Kanchantar within P.S English Bazar, S.I, S.C. Saha of E.B.P.S along with his force intercepted a Truck bearing no. W.G.R.671 and found carrying 25 bags of rice, each bag containing about one quintal of rice. The present appellant was the driver of the said Truck who along with four other accused persons were within the said truck. On interrogation, accused Nakul disclosed that out of 25 bags of rice, four bags belong to him and rest belong to other occupants o
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for a conviction under the Essential Commodities Act, which was not established in this case.
Criminal Law - Unauthorized possession of 12 bags of PDS rice, each bag containing 50 kg and beer bottles from house of petitioner - Section 7 of E.C. Act, 1955 it is clear that said section provides....
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; discrepancies in evidence led to the acquittal of the appellant under the Essential Commodities Act.
Prosecution must establish seizure of commodities with clear evidence; failure to weigh goods and inconsistent witness testimonies negate conviction under Essential Commodities Act.
Mandatory registration of FIR is required for cognizable offences, and failure to adhere to this process invalidates subsequent legal actions.
Mandatory registration of FIR is required for cognizable offences, and unlawful seizure of goods without proper procedure contravenes established legal principles.
Procedural lapses in FIR registration render subsequent search and seizure invalid, emphasizing the importance of following legal protocol in criminal actions.
Burden of proof on the accused to explain possession of essential commodities; conviction set aside due to doubt in prosecution's case regarding ownership.
Ownership of a vehicle does not impose liability for illegal transport without proof of involvement or wrongdoing, reaffirming principles of burden of proof and reasonable doubt.
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
