Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Cal) 436

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
PRASENJIT BISWAS, J.
Swapan Kumar Panja - Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal – Respondent
C.R.A. 177 of 1994
Decided On : 15-01-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Chittapriya Ghosh, Mr. Sabyasachi Roy Chowdhury.
For the State : Mr. Debasish Roy, Ld. PP Ms. Faria Hossain, Ld. APP.

The court upheld the conviction under the Essential Commodities Act while granting probation due to the appellant's age, a lack of criminal history, and the considerable delay since the offense.

Headnote:(A) Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Section 7(1)(a)(ii) - Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 - Violation of provisions leading to conviction and sentencing of rigorous imprisonment and fines - The court evaluated contradictions in witness testimonies which undermined the prosecution case yet upheld the conviction. (Paras 2, 8, 21, 44)

(B) Judicial assessment of evidence - The court found no substantial material contradiction warranting interference with the trial judge's assessment of evidence. (Paras 30, 32)

(C) Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 - Recognized the appellant's age, absence of criminal antecedents and the long lapse of time since the offence, allowing for probation. (Paras 37, 43)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for violations related to the stocking and sale of fertilizers under essential commodities regulations, following a raid that revealed discrepancies in stock records and failure to display required documentation.

Findings of Court:
The trial court found substantial evidence against the appellant supporting both the conviction and sentencing, while also acknowledging mitigating factors related to the appellant's personal circumstances.

Issues: Whether the contradictions in witness statements undermine the prosecution case and warrant reversal of conviction?

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that despite contradictions, the overall evidence supported the trial court's findings, and the appellant was eligible for probation due to mitigating circumstances.

Result: Appeal allowed in part, conviction upheld; appellant released on probation.

JUDGMENT :

Prasenjit Biswas, J.

1. The impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 15.06.1994 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court (E.C. Act) Burdwan in connection with T.R. Case No. 53 of 1991 is assailed in this appeal.

2. By passing the impugned judgment, the present appellant was found guilty for violation of provisions of paragraph 4 and 35 of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 and was convicted under Section 7 (1)(a)(ii) of the E.C. Act (Act X/55) and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months along with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, and in default of payment of fine to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for two months.

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

4. In short compass, the prosecution case, as unfolded from the record, is delineated hereunder:—

“S.I. B. Chakraborty, D.E.O., Katwa, submitted a written complaint on 19.08.1991 alleging, inter alia, that acting upon secret information, he, along with police personnel, conducted a raid at the shop of the accused at about 9:30 a.m., under the supervision of the D.E.B. Inspector, Katwa. Upon arrival at the shop and godown of the accused, it was allegedly found that the accused was engaged in the business of fertilizers and that a huge quantity of fertilizers of different brands was stored and exposed for sale. It was further alleged that a notice was served upon the shopkeeper and, in the presence of local witnesses; physical verification of the stock was carried out. During such verification, it was noticed that no rate and stock board was displayed either at the shop or at the godown of the accused. On actual counting of the stock, certain discrepancies and anomalies were allegedly detected. In particular, no stock of “Lalan Super Phosphate” was shown in the stock register produced at the time of inspection, and the accused allegedly failed to furnish any satisfactory explanation for the said discrepancy in the fertilizer stock. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, it was claimed that the accused had violated paragraphs 3 and 5 of the West Bengal Declaration of Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1977, as well as paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 21 of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1956, thereby rendering himself liable to be prosecuted under Section 7 (1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Accordingly, a written complaint was lodged before the concerned police station, and the case was registered and taken up for investigation”.

5. After completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted against the accused for violation of paragraphs 3 and 5 of the West Bengal West Bengal Declaration of Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1977 and paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985.

6. The accused was examined under Section 251 of Cr.P.C and the substance of accusation was read over and explained to him as the accused allegedly violated the provisions of paragraph 3(2) of the West Bengal Declaration of Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1977 and paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 and was liable for conviction under Section7(1)(a)(ii) of the E.C. Act (Act X/55).

7. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8. In this case five witnesses were examined by the side of the prosecution and four witnesses including the accused himself were examined on behalf of the defence. Documents were marked exhibits on behalf of both the sides.

9. Mr. Chittapriya Ghosh, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, has strenuously contended that the impugned judgment and order of conviction cannot be sustained in the eye of law, inasmuch as the prosecution case is riddled with material contradictions and omissions in the testimonies of its witnesses, which go to the very root of the case.

10. It is submitted b