07.5.2025 Sl. 18 Samarpita Court No.655 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction Appellate Side CRA 201 of 1989 In the Matter of: Madhab Mandal …. appellant Ms. Shabiha Naaz, (learned amicus curiae)

Mrs. Faria Hossain, Ld. A.P.P.

Ms. Suparna Chatterjee .. for the State

1. The instant appeal is preferred at the behest of the appellant, challenging the impugned judgement and order of conviction passed by the learned Judge, Spl. Court (E.C. Act), Murshidabad, in connection with Special Court G.R. No. 86 of 1985, arising out of Beldanga Police Station Case No. 6 dated 18.8.1085 (G.R.E. No. 43 of 1985) dated 13.5.1989 finding this appellant guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 7(i) (a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for violation of provisions of para 3(i) (b) of the West Bengal Rice and Paddy (Licensing & Control) order, 1967, and Section 6 (2)(a)(d) of the West Bengal Anti Profiteering Act and as well as para 3(2) of the West Bengal Declaration of Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodities order, 1977 and sentenced him for rigorous imprisonment for three months along with fine in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for 15 (fifteen) days.

2. The story of the prosecution in a nutshell is delineated hereunder-

“The de facto complainant lodged this complaint stating interalia that on 18.8.1985 when he was posted as D.E.O., Beldanga in between 9 hours to 11 hours he inspected the shop of the accused Madhab Chandra Mondal at Mahula, Police Station, Beldanga in presence of witnesses. It was found that the shop of the appellant was open and he exposed rice for sale. On asking the license for selling the rice, the accused failed to produce stock book, rate-cum- stock-board, license, stock-cum-price board, sale registrar, purchase registrar etc. and as such the accused violated the provision of Para 3 of West Bengal Rice and Paddy (Licensing and Control) order, 1967 read with para 3(2) of the West Bengal Declaration of Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1977 as well as Section 6 (2)(a)(d) of the West Bengal Anti Profiteering Act, 1958. Thereafter, eight quintals of rice were seized by the de facto complainant in presence of the witnesses after preparing seizure list. The seized articles were given in ‘jimba’ to the accused person under ‘jimbanama’. Over the complaint the case was started being Beldanga P.S. case no. 6 dated 18.8.1985. Thus the criminal law was set in motion. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted by the prosecuting agency under Section 7(i) (a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for violation of section 6(2)(a)(d) of the West Bengal Anti Profitering Act and para 3(2) of the West Bengal Declaration of Stocks and Prices of E.C. Order.”

3. In this case, two witnesses were examined by the side of the prosecution. On the side of the defense, two witnesses were adduced.

4. It is said by the learned amicus curiae on behalf of the appellant that there are apparent contradictions and omissions in the statements of the witnesses. It is said that the de facto complainant investigated the case which is bad in law and has seriously prejudiced the appellant accused and the same was not done in accordance with Law. It is said that the independent witnesses to the seizure who cited as prosecution witnesses did not state anything which may prove the factum of the seizure by the prosecution.

5. The attention of the Court is drawn to the deposition of P.W.2 wherein, he stated that he signed the paper in the house where Narayan Roy, Police Officer resided. It is said by the learned amicus curiae that D.W.2 at the time of giving deposition stated that this appellant had lands and he retained 10/15 quintals of rice and wheat which were usufructs of lands and he kept it for his own consumption.

D.W.1 also deposed in the same line of D.W.2.

6. As per the submission of the learned amicus curiae that there is no evidence to show that the P.W.1 had re