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

The Hon’ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas CRA 21 Of 2005 Sisir Bauri -Versus-

The State of West Bengal For the Appellant : Mr. Soumik Ganguli, Ms. Chandana Chakraborty.

For the State : Ms. Baisali Basu, Ld, Jt. G.P.

Ms. Nandini chatterjee.

Hearing concluded on : 17.06.2025 Delivered on : 19.06.2025 Prasenjit Biswas, J:-

1. The appeal is directed at the behest of the appellant challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 10.12.2004 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bankura in connection with Sessions Case No. 13(4)03 and Sessions Trial No. 6(6)03.

2. By passing the impugned judgment and order this appellant is found guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code and he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said impugned judgment and order of conviction the present appeal is filed on behalf of the appellants.

4. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that:-

“A suomoto complaint was lodged by Saroj Hazra, S.I. of police and O.C.

Chatna P.S. stating that on 18.01.1999 at about 19:35 hours he along with force conducted a raid at Chatna to Saltore Pitched Road, Ethani village against illegal transportation of coal and found a truck bearing no. WGW-1813 loaded with goods which was coming from Saltore side. This defacto complainant signaled to stop the said vehicle. The vehicle was stopped by the driver and he found that the truck was loaded with coal weighting approx 10 M.T. On demand the driver of the truck failed to produce any valid document in support of carrying coals on the truck. On interrogation the driver disclosed his name and address as Sisir Bauri who is the appellant in this case.”

5. Over the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant a case being no. 7/99 dated 18.01.1999 was started by the concerned police station. After completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted by the prosecuting agency against this accused and the other accused Dulal Mukherjee under Sections 379,411,413,414 of I.P.C. and 34 of the Mines and Minerals Act.

6. The charge was framed by the Trial Court under Section 413/414 of IPC and Section 34 of the M.M. Act which was read over and explained to the accused persons and they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During pendency of the case before the Trial Court the accused Dulal Mukherjee died and the case stood abated against him.

7. In this case 5 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and documents were marked as exhibits on its behalf.

8. The defence has examined one witness as DW1 in this case in support of his plea.

9. Mr. Soumik Ganguli, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant/convict submits that there are apparent mistakes and omissions in the statements of the witnesses made before the Trial Court. It is further said by the learned Advocate that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the seized coal was actually stolen property. The order of conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court under Section 414 of IPC suffers from several illegalities. It is said by the learned Advocate that there is nothing in the evidences of the witnesses for which it can be said that this appellant has extended his hand in order to help the owner of the truck for fruitful gain.

10. Lastly, it is said by Mr. Ganguly that the prosecution has hopelessly failed to prove beyond all reasonable shadow of doubt that the seized property was stolen in nature and as such the impugned judgment and order of conviction is otherwise bad in law and is liable to be set aside.

11. Ms. Baisali Basu, learned Advocate. appearing on behalf of the State submitted that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court. It is said by the learned Advocate that all the witnesses corroborated the contentions as made i