IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:-

HON’BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS.

CRA 2 OF 1993 BIDHI CHAND CHOWRASIA VS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL For the Amicus Curiae : Mr. Anirudha Bhattacharyya , Adv.

For the State : Ms. Manisha Sharma, Adv.

Ms. Pushpita Saha, Adv.

Last heard on : 3.12.2026 Judgement on : 06.02.2026 Uploaded on : 06.02.2026 CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS:-

1. This criminal appeal was filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order of conviction and sentence dated December 18, 1992 passed by the special E.C Act, in Special Court case no. 87 of 1990 convicting the accused appellant under section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the essential commodities act for violation of paragraph 3(2) of the West Bengal declaration of stocks and prices of Essential Commodities order, 1977 and 3(2) of the West, Bengal, motor spirit, and high speed diesel oil (licensing control, and maintenance of supplies) order, 1860, and sentenced him to suffer, regardless imprisonment for6 six months and to pay a fine of ₹2000 in default to suffer as imprisonment for another one month Fact of the case.

2. . On November 22, 1990 at about 14.00 hrs when the appellant was not personally present at the Sage service station and one employee of the firm, Anil Kumar Mishra was looking the business, some police officers, and enforcement branch, Hooghly raided the shop and found one wooden board with writing “Tail nahi hai” and they found after ported measurement, shortage in the stock to the extent of 279 L of the said oil, and they seized stock cum rate board. Subsequently Dankuni Police Station case no. 102 dated November 22, 1990 start and on completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted against the present. Appellant and the learned Special Court passed the order of conviction. Being aggrieved by this Appeal was filed.

Submission

3. The learned Amicus representing the appellant argued that the measurement of H.S.D oil in the two underground tanks of the service station by D.E.B Officials was not done following the procedure. It is his further contention that no satisfactory explanation for the allegation of keeping hundred litres of oil as alleged. The specific defence was taken by the person who was present at the spot that the license was lying in the DM Office and hence such document could not be produced. The prosecution failed to prove the case as the independent witnesses became hostile. The Appellant was in a position to show that 750 Ltrs. of HSD oil sold on that day. The firm was not made a party and the raid was conducted in absence of the present appellant. The search and seizure are absolutely doubtful and hence the order of conviction cannot stand.

4. The learned prosecution raises objection and argued that the prosecution case was proved beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. In order to bring home the charges, they cited seven witnesses and the materials were exhibited and the learned special court, considering the facts and circumstances, such order of conviction which is not to be interfere with. Accordingly prayed for dismissal of this appeal.

5. Having heard both the learned amicus as well as the prosecution and on-going through the materials and record the issue appears to be decided is that as to whether the order of conviction was passed by the special court was right or not . The foundation of the prosecution case rests upon a complaint dated November 22, 1990 by the DEOIII, Surojit N. Biswas to the Officer-Charge Dankuni Police Station. It was alleged by the concern Officer that on receipt of secret information he along with S.IN.K Shikhdar W/C107 Vishwanath Dutta, both of DEB, visited M/S Chaurasia service station located at par – Dankuni under the direct supervision of deputy SP. DEB Hooghly.. On inspection the pump, they found one wooden board with writing no oil available display in front office room of the said petrol pump. During inspection, they checked