Failure To Examine Available Independent Witnesses Casts Doubt On Fairness Of Investigation; Calcutta High Court Allows Appeal; Sets Aside Conviction Under Essential Commodities Act
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Calcutta Single Bench of Justice Prasenjit Biswas set aside the conviction of an appellant who had been sentenced by a Special Court under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act for allegedly transporting rice with improper documentation. While examining the appeal, the Court noted that the failure to examine independent witnesses, despite their admitted presence during the raid, created doubt regarding the fairness and transparency of the investigation. The dispute arose from the interception of a vehicle carrying rice, which officials claimed was supported by unreliable documents. Concluding that the prosecution had not established the charge, the Court reversed the conviction and directed that the appellant be released, subject to statutory formalities.
The appeal arose from a conviction delivered by the Special Court (E.C. Act), Murshidabad, where the accused was found guilty for an offence under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act and sentenced to six months’ simple imprisonment along with a fine of ₹500, with a further one-month imprisonment in default of payment.
The case arose from a raid conducted on 27 November 1992 by an anti-smuggling team at Daulatabad, where officers intercepted a vehicle transporting sixty bags of rice reportedly headed toward Jalangi–Narasinghapur. According to the complaint, the driver presented photocopies of a licence, an authorization letter and a cash memo, which were later described as not genuine. The rice was seized, weighed and placed in the custody of local individuals, and a written complaint was filed at the police station, leading to the initiation of criminal proceedings under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
During trial, the prosecution examined two police witnesses and produced several documents to support the allegation that the appellant was transporting rice on the basis of fabricated documents. The witnesses described the raid, seizure and verification steps, including an alleged inquiry at a shop said to have issued the cash memo. The defence examined one witness, who produced purchase memos and stated that the rice had been lawfully acquired and transported with supporting papers.
The appellant argued that there were inconsistencies between the complaint and witness testimonies, absence of key witnesses, and non-production of important documents. The prosecution maintained that the evidence of its witnesses was consistent and adequate to sustain the allegation under the invoked statutory provision.
The Court recorded that P.W. 1’s claim that the appellant failed to produce any document “stands in stark contradiction to what has been clearly stated in the written complaint lodged at the initial stage of the case,” where it was documented that the appellant produced a cash/credit memo, an authorized bill and a photocopy of a rice license which were later found false.
The Bench observed that the contradiction “strikes at the core of the prosecution’s narrative regarding the conduct of the appellant and the circumstances under which the seizure was allegedly made.”
P.W. 2’s evidence was found inconsistent because although he asserted that the serial numbers in the cash memo book showed that the memo was fabricated, he “categorically admitted that the cash memo book containing serial numbers 715 to 750 had not been produced before the Court” and further that he “was not in a position to produce the very cash memo which was allegedly seized in the instant case.”
On the prosecution’s failure to examine crucial witnesses, the Court noted that “no proper verification was conducted with respect to the alleged cash memos seized during the investigation” and that “the said Shambhu Saha… was neither cited as a witness nor examined during the trial.”
The Court also recorded that although several persons were present during the raid, “no independent witness has been cited or produced to corroborate the alleged seizure in this case.”
Regarding the defence witness, the Court observed that D.W. 1 “provided testimony that significantly supports the version put forth by the appellant” and that the prosecution “was unable to extract anything from the witness that would either impeach his credibility or lend support to the allegations contained in the FIR.”
The Court concluded that the Trial Court had “misread and misappreciated several material aspects of the evidence,” resulting in a conviction that was “legally unsustainable” because “the prosecution case suffered from significant contradictions, non-examination of vital witnesses, non-production of crucial documents, and failure to establish the authenticity of the seized items.”
The Court stated: “Accordingly, the criminal appeal being no. CRA 284 of 1999 is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court… is hereby set aside.The appellant is on bail. He is to be discharged from the bail bonds and be set at liberty if he is not wanted in connection with any other case.”
“The appellant is required to furnish bail bonds along with suitable sureties, which shall remain valid and operative for a period of six months from the date of execution.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellant: Dr. Achin Jana, Mr. Prosenjit Ghosh, Mr. Bhaskar Dalui, Ms. Chetna Rusagi
For the State: Mr. Avishek Sinha, Ms. Jonaki Saha
Case Title: Dilip Kumar Mondal vs State
Case Number: CRA 284 of 1999
Bench: Justice Prasenjit Biswas
