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

The Hon’ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas CRA 428 Of 1990 Gopal Chandra Das -Versus-

The State of West Bengal For the Appellant : Mr. Subham Bhakat (Amicus Curiae)

For the State : Ms. S. Das Mr. Sharequl Haque Hearing concluded on : 29.04.2025 Delivered on : 19.05.2025 Prasenjit Biswas, J:-

1. The instant appeal has been preferred challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 6th September, 1990 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court (E.C. Act), Hoogly finding this appellant guilty for commission of offence under Section 7(1) (a) (II) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for violation of paragraph 3 of the West Bengal Imported Vegetables Oils (Prohibition of Unauthorized Sale) Order, 1984 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 1 month further.

2. In short campus the story of the prosecution is that –

“On 31.05.1988 S.I. R.N. Mondal of DEB Hoogly accompanied by force conducted a raid to Begumpur Station Bazar Road and found that this appellant convict near at railway level crossing with 6 tins of S.T.C Brand edible grade Refind Rapeseed Oil. On being asked this appellant failed to show any document for possession of those tins of Rapeseed Oil. As the appellant failed to show any document, the said tins were seized by the raiding team under a seizure list in presence of the witnesses. Thereafter this accused was taken to police station with seized tins of Rapeseed Oil and a written complaint was lodged to that effect. On the basis of the said written complaint a case was started by the concerned police station. After completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted against this appellant convict under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of E.C. Act X/55 for violation of para 3 of the West Bengal Imported Vegetable Oils (Prohibition of Unauthorised Sale) Order, 1984. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.”

3. In this case 6 witnesses were examined by the side of the prosecution and documents were marked as exhibits on behalf of the prosecution.

4. Mr. Subham Bhakat, learned Amicus Curiae said that there are apparent contradictions in the statements of the witnesses. It is said by the learned Advocate that the place of occurrence was more or less populated and there were shops and stalls nearby. The attention of this Court is drawn to the deposition of PW 6 who investigated the case and deposed that he had not received any local man for purpose of witness. As per submission of the learned Advocate the seizure list prepared by the police personnel was not witnessed by any local person and there was no independent person to support the factum of seizure. So, the seizure list as prepared by the police personnel creates doubt and the same cannot be relied upon.

5. It is further said by the learned Advocate that although it was a case of the prosecution that the seized tins contained Rapeseed Oil or imported vegetable oil within the meaning of the West Bengal Imported Vegetable Oils (Prohibition of Unauthorised Sale) Order but in the absence of any authenticated test report no conclusion can be drawn that the seized tins allegedly contained Rapeseed Oil or imported vegetable oil. It is further assailed by the learned Advocate that in this case 6 witnesses were examined by the side of the prosecution but their evidences are contradictory to each other in material particulars and no independent witness was examined to establish the prosecution case beyond all reasonable doubt. So, it is said by the learned Advocate that the impugned judgment and order of conviction is not sustainable under the provision of law and it may be set aside.

6. Ms. S. Das learned Advocate for the State said that there is no illegality or material irregularity in the impugned judgment and order of conviction. It is said that the prosecution rel