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

The Hon’ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay C.R.A. 115 of 1997 Sunil Barman -Vs-

The State of West Bengal For the Appellant : Mr. Rajeshwar Chakraborty (Amicus Curiae)

For the State : Ms. Faria Hossain Ms. Jonaki Saha Heard on : 10.05.2024, 10.09.2024 Judgment on : 21.04.2025 Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.:-

1. This appeal is preferred against an order dated March 18, 1997 passed by the Learned Judge, Special Court, E.C. Act, Cooch Behar in connection with E.C.G.R. Case No.9 of 1995 (State Vs. Sunil Barman) convicting the appellant for committing offence under Section 7(i)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act for violation of the provisions of Clause 3(1) of West Bengal Rice and Paddy (Licencing and Control) Order, 1967 and also for violation of the provision of Clause 3(2) of the West Bengal Declaration of Stock and Price of Essential Commodities Order, 1977 and sentencing him to suffer simple imprisonment of three months and further sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs.300/- only, in default, to suffer further simple imprisonment for 30 days.

2. The appellant was placed on trial before the Learned Judge, Special Court, E.C. Act, Cooch Behar, to face a charge under Section 7(i)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act for contravention of Paragraph 3(2) of West Bengal Declaration for Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1977 and Paragraph 3(1) of West Bengal Rice and Paddy (Licencing and Control) Order, 1967.

3. The Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted as follows:-

i. The Learned Trial Judge had not considered that out of ten prosecution witnesses, eight witnesses were declared hostile and remaining were interested witnesses and the same witnesses failed to prove the case of prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.

ii. Recovery and seizure was made from the grocery shop of one Anil Barman who was the brother of the appellant and at the time of alleged inspection as Anil Barman was not present and the appellant was called from his house and his signature was taken on some blank papers.

iii. There was no cogent evidence that the appellant was engaged in selling rice or sugar of atta or other essential commodities at the time of inspection on July 16, 1995.

iv. The Learned Trial Judge had not considered that prosecution witness no.6 Watcher Constable 669 Jogen alias Jogendra Ch. Dey, witness no.7 Home Guard 804 Madhab Chandra Saha and witness no.8 Home Guard 786 Bachha Barman were police personnel but declared hostile.

v. Only the evidence of PW-10 and PW-9 was considered. Other witnesses were declared hostile.

vi. The evidence adduced by PW-10 was contradictory to his own evidence as well as the evidence adduced by PW-9.

vii. There was no beam scale at the place of occurrence and as per the statement of the appellant PW-10 S. S. Bose had prepared the weighment chart (Exbt.- 2/4).

4. The Learned Advocate for the State submitted that after reasonable assessment of evidence both oral and documentary, rightly passed the impugned judgment and the appeal shall be dismissed.

5. The assessment of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution revealed that that the appellant used to operate the grocery shop of his brother, Anil Barman without a valid licence, issued in his favour, dealing in rice. The stock register, rate board could not be produced.

6. The seizure list marked Exbt. 1/4, Exbt. 2/4, Exbt. 2/3, Exbt. 1/3 proved the seizure of the commodities and there subsequent weighment.

7. The Learned Trial Court on consideration of oral and documentary evidence rightly convicted the appellant.

8. In the decision of Tarak Nath Keshari Vs. State of West Bengal1, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows:-

2023 SCC OnLine SC 605

“7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. The fact that inspection of the shop of the appellant was carried out on 20.8.1985, hence the incident had taken place more than 37 years back. As was point