Form J(2)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction -------------

Present :

The Hon’ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas C.R.A. 48 of 1998 Kamal Kumar Das Vs.

The State of West Bengal For the Appellant : Mr. Sachit Talukdar Mr. Tirtharaj Ghoshal For the State : Ms. Ritupurna De Ghose Mr. Kanchan Roy Heard on : 18.09.2025 Judgment on : 18.09.2025 (Dictated in Court Prasenjit Biswas, J.

1. The impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 19.01.1998 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court (under E.C. Act), Malda in connection with D.G.R. Case No. 66 of 1995 is assailed in this appeal.

2. By passing the impugned judgment, this appellant was found guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act and he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months along with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month.

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

4. For the sake of brevity, the prosecution version is summarized hereunder:-

“The case was started on the basis of a complaint lodged by the defecto complainant stating, inter alia, that on 03.11.1995 in between 12 hours and 13:45 hours, a raid was conducted in the shop-cum- godown of the accused, Kamal Kumar Das. The raiding team had seized 62 bags of boiled rice, 9 bags of boiled rice and 20 bags of atta from the godown-cum-shop of the accused and 24 bags of boiled rice and 5 bags of atta were seized from the house. On asking, the accused failed to show any document of retaining those goods. Moreover, no stock of price board was found in the shop-cum-godown of the accused. As the accused violated the provision of para 3(2) of the W.B. Declaration of Stocks and Price of Essential Commodities Control Order, 1977, the case was started over the said complaint by the defacto complainant.”

5. In this manner, the criminal proceedings commenced and, on conclusion of investigation, a charge sheet came to be submitted against the accused person under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the E.C. Act.

6. The record reveals that nine witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and documents were exhibited accordingly, while one witness was adduced from the side of the accused.

7. Mr. Sachit Talukdar, learned advocate for the appellant said that there are apparent contradictions and omissions in the statements of the witnesses and for which the impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court is not sustainable under the law. It is said that the independent witnesses, who are cited to the witnesses to the seizure, did not state anything for which the factum of seizure can be believed. Moreover, the accused produced his license at the time of conducting raid to the authority concerned and the same finds mention in the evidence of official witnesses, but no scrutiny of the same was done in course of investigation

8. It is further assailed by the learned Advocate that there are apparent contradictions as to the quantity of the seized article and the place of seizure, which also affects the very root of the prosecution case. Moreover, a raiding team member (PW9) was also the investigation officer in this case and as such a fair and free investigation could not be done and for the reason no investigation was carried out regarding retailer license of the accused.

9. It is further contended by the learned advocate that the prosecution case suffers from a fundamental defect inasmuch as no weighment of the seized articles was ever carried out at the time of search and seizure. This fact has been admitted by prosecution witnesses themselves, including the independent witnesses to the seizure. If there was no actual weighment of the alleged bags of rice and atta, then the prosecution has failed to establish the precise quantity of the articl