Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Cal) 959

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
PRASENJIT BISWAS, J.
Kamal Kumar Das - Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal – Respondent
C.R.A. 48 of 1998
Decided On : 18-09-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Sachit Talukdar, Mr. Tirtharaj Ghoshal
For the Respondent: Ms. Ritupurna De Ghose, Mr. Kanchan Roy.

Prosecution must establish seizure of commodities with clear evidence; failure to weigh goods and inconsistent witness testimonies negate conviction under Essential Commodities Act.

Headnote:(A) Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Section 7(1)(a)(ii) - West Bengal Declaration of Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodities Control Order, 1977 - Conviction for non-compliance with stock and price display requirements - Insufficient evidence regarding seized quantities impacting prosecution's case. (Paras 2, 27, 28)

(B) The conviction was based on flawed evidence and contradictions, including failure to weigh seized goods and discrepancies in witness testimonies, leading to doubts about the prosecution's claims. (Paras 9, 19, 29)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was found guilty of storing excess essential commodities without maintaining proper documentation during a raid. Allegations included failure to display stock prices, but several witness testimonies conflicted on the circumstances and details of the raid and seizure.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to fundamental flaws and inconsistencies in evidence.

Issues: The key issues included the validity of the seizure process and whether violations occurred at the proper location.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution's failure to conduct proper weighment and establish clear evidence of the alleged violations undermined the charge, and therefore, the conviction could not stand.

Result: Appeal allowed; conviction set aside.

JUDGMENT :

Prasenjit Biswas, J.

1. The impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 19.01.1998 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court (under E.C. Act), Malda in connection with D.G.R. Case No. 66 of 1995 is assailed in this appeal.

2. By passing the impugned judgment, this appellant was found guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 7 (1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act and he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months along with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month.

3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said impugned judgment and order of conviction, the present appeal is preferred at the behest of the appellant.

4. For the sake of brevity, the prosecution version is summarized hereunder:-

“The case was started on the basis of a complaint lodged by the defecto complainant stating, inter alia, that on 03.11.1995 in between 12 hours and 13:45 hours, a raid was conducted in the shop-cum-godown of the accused, Kamal Kumar Das. The raiding team had seized 62 bags of boiled rice, 9 bags of boiled rice and 20 bags of atta from the godown-cum-shop of the accused and 24 bags of boiled rice and 5 bags of atta were seized from the house. On asking, the accused failed to show any document of retaining those goods. Moreover, no stock of price board was found in the shop-cum-godown of the accused. As the accused violated the provision of para 3(2) of the W.B. Declaration of Stocks and Price of Essential Commodities Control Order, 1977, the case was started over the said complaint by the defacto complainant.”

5. In this manner, the criminal proceedings commenced and, on conclusion of investigation, a charge sheet came to be submitted against the accused person under Section 7 (1)(a)(ii) of the E.C. Act.

6. The record reveals that nine witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and documents were exhibited accordingly, while one witness was adduced from the side of the accused.

7. Mr. Sachit Talukdar, learned advocate for the appellant said that there are apparent contradictions and omissions in the statements of the witnesses and for which the impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court is not sustainable under the law. It is said that the independent witnesses, who are cited to the witnesses to the seizure, did not state anything for which the factum of seizure can be believed. Moreover, the accused produced his license at the time of conducting raid to the authority concerned and the same finds mention in the evidence of official witnesses, but no scrutiny of the same was done in course of investigation

8. It is further assailed by the learned Advocate that there are apparent contradictions as to the quantity of the seized article and the place of seizure, which also affects the very root of the prosecution case. Moreover, a raiding team member (PW9) was also the investigation officer in this case and as such a fair and free investigation could not be done and for the reason no investigation was carried out regarding retailer license of the accused.

9. It is further contended by the learned advocate that the prosecution case suffers from a fundamental defect inasmuch as no weighment of the seized articles was ever carried out at the time of search and seizure. This fact has been admitted by prosecution witnesses themselves, including the independent witnesses to the seizure. If there was no actual weighment of the alleged bags of rice and atta, then the prosecution has failed to establish the precise quantity of the articles allegedly stored by the accused. It is said that the entire foundation of the charge rests on the allegation that the accused had stored essential commodities beyond the permissible limit. However, in order to prove such an allegation, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to establish by credible and unimpeachable evidence that the exact quantity of the se