IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas

Sri Bimal Chandra Das

-Versus-

The State of West Bengal

For the Appellant : Mr. Kallol Mondal, Ld. Sr. Adv.

Mr. Krishan Ray,

Mr. Souvik Das,

Mr. Anamitra Banerjee,

Mr. Sreyash Kumar Singh,

Ms. Moupia Chakraborty.

For the State : Ms. Manisha Sharma,

Ms. Rituparna Saha

Hearing concluded on : 13.11.2025 Delivered on : 16.12.2025

Prasenjit Biswas, J:-

1. The impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 31.08.1989 passed by the learned Special Judge, Special Court (E.C. Act), Cooch

Behar in Sessions Trial Case No. Spl. E.C.G.R. Case no. 7/87 is assailed in this appeal at the instance of the appellant.

2. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said impugned judgment, the present appeal is preferred by the appellant.

3. By passing the impugned judgment, the present appellant was convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1985 for contravention of clause 18 of the West Bengal Rice and Paddy (Licensing Control Order), 1967 and clauses 8 and 9 of the License under West Bengal Sugar Dealers Licensing Order, 1980 and he was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for three months along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month.

4. In short compass, the prosecution story, as unfolded from the complaint and the evidence on record, may be delineated thus:

“On 04.04.1987, a team of officers from the Department of Enforcement Branch (D.E.B.), comprising the Deputy Enforcement Officer (D.E.O.), Cooch Behar Sadar, the D.E.B. Inspector, and accompanying force, conducted an inspection of the M.R. (Modified Rationing) shop of the appellant, Sri Bimal Das, situated at Harinchawra. At the time of inspection, the appellant Bimal Das, along with his employee Swapan Dey (since acquitted), was found present in the shop and was allegedly transacting with ration card holders. Upon being questioned by the inspecting officers regarding the stock position, the appellant stated that he had drawn 11 quintals of rice on 03.04.1987, 1 quintal and 90 kilograms of sugar on 02.04.1987, and 525 litres of kerosene oil on 01.04.1987 from the concerned M.R. distributor. However, despite such assertion, the appellant failed to produce any purchase memo or documentary proof in support of his claim relating to the lifting of the aforesaid quantities of essential commodities. Thereafter, the inspecting officers undertook verification of the relevant records maintained in the shop, including the stock register, the cash memo book, and the stock-cum-rate display board. Simultaneously, a physical verification of the available stock was conducted. On such verification, the officers allegedly detected discrepancies between the recorded stock and the actual physical stock. Specifically, there was found to be a shortage of sugar to the extent of 39 kilograms and 675 grams, a shortage of rice to the extent of 5 quintals, 16 kilograms and 675 grams, and an excess of kerosene oil measuring half a litre. Consequent upon the detection of the aforesaid discrepancies, the D.E.B. officers seized the stock register, stock and rate board, and cash memo book under a duly prepared seizure list in the presence of witnesses. The essential commodities, in respect of which discrepancies were alleged, were also weighed at the spot in the presence of such witnesses. It is further the case of the prosecution that at the time of the raid there was a public gathering in the shop premises, and taking advantage of the commotion and the presence of the crowd, the appellant Bimal Das managed to slip away from the spot. On the basis of the said incident, a written complaint was lodged by PW1, Sri S. P. Sarkar, setting the criminal law into motion. Upon completion of the investigation, the Investigating Agency submitted a charge-sheet against the accused persons,