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

The Hon’ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay C.R.A. 142 of 1998 Anil Kumar Mondal -Vs-

The State of West Bengal For the Appellant : Ms. Pallavi Priyadarshee (Amicus Curiae)

For the State : Mr. Avishek Sinha Heard on : 21.05.2024, 01.10.2024 Judgment on : 21.04.2025 Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.:-

1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 09.03.1998 passed by the Learned Judge, Special Court, under the Essential Commodities Act, Murshidabad in E.C. Case No.40 of 1991 (corresponding T.R. No.32 of 1993) thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act and for violation of paragraph 3(1)(b) of West Bengal Rice and Paddy Licensing Control Order, 1967 and para 3(2) of West Bengal Declaration Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodity Order, 1977 and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment in 3 months and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 month more.

2. The prosecution case precisely stated on 12.04.91 the complainant i.e., PW-3 along with others were conducting raid at the grocery shop of the appellant. During raid the shop owner Anil Kumar Mondal i.e., the appellant was carrying on his business. On demand the appellant failed to produce any rice license, fertilizer license, stock cum rate board, books of accounts, cash memo for carrying business in respect of fertilizers and other essential commodities exposed for sale in his shop. He also failed to produce any trade license for running the grocery shop. Thereafter the complainant seized the articles under a seizure list and took weighment of the articles in presence of witnesses and prepared one seizure list at the spot in presence of witnesses. He gave jimma of the seized articles to the appellant after obtaining a proper jummanama. Thereafter, the appellant on the plea of bringing trade license entered into his house and fled away. Then, the complainant came to P.S. and lodged a written complaint before the O.C., Hariharpara P.S. which prompted the concerned case was started.

3. After completion of investigation, the Police submitted charge- sheet against the appellant to whom he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 3 witnesses and exhibited certain documents.

5. The Learned Amicus Curiae representing the appellant submitted that:- i. The impugned order of conviction and sentenced recorded by the Learned Judge, Special Court (under the Essential Commodities Act), Murshidabad against the appellant was passed without proper appreciation of the evidence and other materials on record which has prejudiced the appellants.

ii. The Learned Judge, Special Court (under the Essential Commodities Act), Murshidabad at the time of passing the impugned order of conviction and sentenced against the appellant also directed that ‘the seized grocery articles be confiscated to state’. That was for beyond the jurisdiction conferred upon the Learned Judge under the Essential Commodities Act and did not conform to law. The power of ordering confiscation of seized articles was vested only upon the collector under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, as such the impugned order of confiscation was bad in law.

7. Considered the rival submissions of the Learned Amicus Curiae as well as Learned Advocate for the State.

8. The order dated 09.03.98 passed by the Learned Judge, Special Court, under the Essential Commodities Act, Murshidabad in E.C. Case No.40 of

1991, inter alia stated as follows:-

“After a careful scrutiny of the record I find that the factum of seizure has been proved by the evidence of PW-1 and PW-3. The accused also admitted the presence of enforcement officer and the preparation of seizure list sitting by the side of his shop. Therefore, the seizure of the articles and the non-availability of the rate board books of account