IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AT AGARTALA
S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY, J.
Sri. Dulal Sarkar S/o Late Ashu Sarkar – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Tripura – Respondent
Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 57 of 2018
Decided On : 28-04-2021
Tripura Excise Act - Section 3 and 69 - Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Section 7(1)(a)(ii) – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 161 – Appeal against conviction - Unauthorized possession of PDS rice and beer - Alleging that pursuant to a tip-off received from secret source of police, he along with his accompanying police staff carried out a raid in house of petitioners who were reported to have stored huge quantity of ration rice (PDS rice) in their respective houses - During such raid informant seized 12 bags of PDS rice, each bag containing 50 kg from the house of petitioner - At time of the said raid petitioner was not available at home.
Finding of the court: During trial, petitioners never claimed that the house premises from where said PDS rice was seized by PW-8 did not belong to them. They did not also come out without any explanation as to how and why such huge quantity of PDS rice was stored in their house. In these circumstances charge against them that they stored Said PDS rice in their houses in contravention of Tripura Foodstuff Dealers' Licensing Order, 2010 stand clearly established against them. Witnesses who were declared hostile by the prosecution gave no evidence at all. Petitioners could not also elucidate any statement from them in their favour. In these circumstances, two sets of evidence theory expounded by petitioners has no application in this case. Nature of offence, punishment thereof, the status and antecedents of accused is of view that sentence awarded to them should be modified - Sentence is reduced to S.I for six months with fine of Rs.5000/- each and I.D to S. I for 15 days each. Period of detention already suffered by them, if any, shall be set off against term of imprisonment.
Result: Criminal revision petition partly allowed
JUDGMENT :
S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY, J.
1. This Criminal revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 06.08.2018 delivered in Criminal Appeal No. 1(01) of 2017 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur affirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur convicting the petitioner for committing offence punishable under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and sentencing them as follows:
| S. No. | Name | Offence | Sentence | Default Sentence |
| 1. | Sri. Titash Sarkar | Under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of E.C. Act, 1955 | R.I. for 2(two) years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- | R.I. for six months |
| 2. | Sri. Dulal Sarkar |
The petitioners have challenged their conviction and sentence by means of filing this criminal revision petition.
2. The genesis of the prosecution case is rooted in the suo motu FIR lodged by Dipak Bhattacharjee (PW-8) at Kakraban Police Station alleging that pursuant to a tip-off received from secret source of police, he along with his accompanying police staff carried out a raid in the house of the petitioners who were reported to have stored huge quantity of ration rice (PDS rice) in their respective houses. During such raid the informant seized 12 bags of PDS rice, each bag containing 50 kg from the house of petitioner, Titash Sarkar. At the time of the said raid petitioner was not available at home. Members of his family could not offer any kind of explanation to the informant with regard to the possession of the said rice. On the same day, the informant seized 30 bags of PDS rice, each bag containing 50 KG from the house of Dulal Sarkar. Apart from said rice, 12 bottles of beer were also recovered and seized from the house of Dulal Sarkar. Petitioner Dulal Sarkar was not also available at home at the time of raid and seizure. Members of his family failed to account for such unauthorized possession of PDS rice and beer by said petitioner Dulal Sarkar. The informant (PW-8) had drawn up two separate seizure lists in presence of witnesses and then lodged the suo motu FIR at the police station.
3. Based on his FIR, Kakraban PS case No. 59 of 2014 under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) was registered for contravention of Tripura Foodstuff Dealers’ Licensing Order, 2010 and investigation of the case was taken up by the investigating agency.
4. During investigation, Chittaranjan Das, Sub Inspector of police of Kakraban Police Station (PW-14) formally seized said PDS rice by two separate seizure lists which were initially seized by the informant police officer. After seizure, he deposited said rice bags at Kakaraban food godown pursuant to Court’s order. Thereafter he visited the crime scene and examined the witnesses who were found acquainted with the facts of the case and recorded their police statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He had also drawn hand sketch map of the crime scene indicating the material locations by a separate index. Samples were drawn from each of the seized rice bags for examination by experts to ascertain whether those were PDS rice. The expert report (Exbt.14) was later collected by him and the investigation was closed. After closure of investigation, he submitted Charge-Sheet No. 72 of 2014 dated 30.06.2014 against the petitioners for having committed offence punishable under Section 7(1)(a)(ii), E.C. Act, 1955 and Section 69 of the Tripura Excise Act.
5. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, South Tripura, Udaipur(as it was then) received the said charge-sheet and on the facts of the case took cognizance of offence punishable under Section 7(1)(a)(ii), E.C. Act, 1955 and Section 69 of Tripura Excise Act. But the trial Court proceeded to try the case only for the offence punishable under E.C. Act, 1955 and at the commencement of trial framed the following charge against the
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 a reasonable doubt for a conviction under the Essential Commodities Act, which was not established in this case.
Mandatory registration of FIR is required for cognizable offences, and unlawful seizure of goods without proper procedure contravenes established legal principles.
Mandatory registration of FIR is required for cognizable offences, and failure to adhere to this process invalidates subsequent legal actions.
Procedural lapses in FIR registration render subsequent search and seizure invalid, emphasizing the importance of following legal protocol in criminal actions.
Prosecution must establish seizure of commodities with clear evidence; failure to weigh goods and inconsistent witness testimonies negate conviction under Essential Commodities Act.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.