SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 10257

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
GOPAL MONDAL – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF W.B. – Respondent
CRA 77 / 1988



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

The Hon’ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay C.R.A. 77 of 1988 Gopal Mondal -Vs-

The State of West Bengal For the Appellant : Mr. Soham Banerjee (Amicus Curiae)

For the State : Ms. Faria Hossain Heard on : 20.05.2024, 30.09.2024 Judgment on : 21.04.2025 Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.:-

1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order delivered and passed by the Learned Judge, Special Court, Durgapur, in T.R. No.31 of 1986, arising out of Kanksha Police Station Case No.10 dated 26.06.1985, convicting the appellant under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act for alleged violation of Para 3(7) of the West Bengal Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel Oil (Licencing, Control and Maintenance of Supplies) Order, 1980 and Para 3(2) of the West Bengal Declaration of Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1977 and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 3 (three)

months.

2. The appellant was placed on a trial being T.R. No.31 of 1986 held by the Learned Judge, Special Court, Durgapur, to face a charge under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act for alleged violation of Para 3(7) of the West Bengal Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel Oil (Licencing, Control and Maintenance of Supplies) Order, 1980 and Para 3(2) of the West Bengal Declaration of Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1977.

3. The prosecution case, inter alia, was that in pursuance of a secret information regarding storage and dealing of petrol and diesel without any licence in the hotel of Man Singh situated on the southern side of G.T. Road, opposite to Panagarh Air Base, Birudiha, one Binayananda Chakraborty, Sub-Inspector of D.E.O., Raniganj along with other police force inspected the hotel of said Man Singh on June 26, 1985 at 13:00 hrs. and found storage of 740 litres diesel in four barrels and 160 litres petrol in one barrel for sale behind the said hotel but within the hotel premise. Accused Gopal Mondal, appellant herein, was found to be present there and dealing in petrol and diesel. On enquiry said Gopal Mondal failed to produce any licence or authority in respect of the aforesaid commodities. No stock-cum- rate board was found displaying at the said place. The commodities were stored by the owner of the hotel namely Man Singh for sale and the accused Gopal Mondal was dealing with the commodities as the salesman in absence of the hotel owner. Sub-Inspector Binayananda Chakraborty accordingly arrested the salesman Gopal Mondal and seized the entire stock of diesel and petrol and kept the diesel in the zimba of one Nattar Singh, Manager of M/s. Gobind Service Station and the petrol in the zimba of Sk. Rajib Ali, Manager of M/s. Kanksa Auto Fuels and Service after taking samples. The said Sub-Inspector thereafter reported the incident to the Officer-in-Charge, Kanksa Police Station whereupon Kanksa Police Station Case No.10 dated 26.06.1985 under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act was registered against accused Man Singh and Gopal Mondal, appellant herein.

4. On completion of the investigation, the Investigating Agency submitted the charge-sheet against both the accuseds namely Man Singh and Gopal Mondal for alleged violation of the orders as mentioned hereinabove. The accuseds pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The defence of the accuseds was that they were innocent and they had no connection with the seized commodities nor they ever carried any business and they had been falsely implicated in the alleged case.

5. In course of the trial the prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses while the defence examined none.

6. The Learned Amicus Curiae representing the appellant submitted as follows:-

i. The place of occurrence in this particular case was not properly established. PW-2 the seizure witness in his e

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top