Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Calcutta, Single Bench of Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das has allowed a criminal appeal and set aside the conviction of a petrol pump operator under the Essential Commodities Act, holding that the prosecution did not establish the alleged breach beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court noted that the reported shortage was based on a disputed tank measurement using a stick/deep rod, without a measurement chart or dependable independent corroboration, and that key witnesses did not support the prosecution version.

The appeal arose from an order of conviction and sentence dated December 18, 1992 passed by the Special Court under the Essential Commodities Act, whereby the accused appellant was convicted under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act for violation of paragraph 3(2) of the West Bengal Declaration of Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1977 and paragraph 3(2) of the West Bengal Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel Oil (Licensing Control and Maintenance of Supplies) Order, 1980.

Also Read: Photocopied Power Of Attorney No Evidence Unless Section 65 Conditions For Secondary Evidence Met: Supreme Court

On November 22, 1990, enforcement officials conducted a raid at a service station in Dankuni and alleged that a board stating “no oil available” was displayed and that there was a shortage of 279 litres of high-speed diesel oil in the underground tank. A barrel containing 100 litres of diesel was also found. Samples were taken and stock and rate boards were seized. It was further alleged that the license could not be produced at the time of inspection.

The defence contended that the measurement of diesel was not conducted following proper procedure, that the underground tank had a slope, and that independent witnesses had turned hostile. It was also contended that 750 litres of diesel were sold on that day under cash memos and that the license was lying in the District Magistrate’s office for renewal.

The Court recorded that the foundation of the prosecution case rested upon the complaint dated November 22, 1990 and noted that “the issue appears to be decided is that as to whether the order of conviction was passed by the special court was right or not.”

On examination of evidence, the Court stated that “the witness was not aware that the underground tank of the service station had a sloping.” It further recorded that “He had no knowledge about the measurement and diameter of the underground tank in question and admitted that no measurement chart of the oil in the underground tank of the service station in question was made.”

The Court observed that “the measurement was taken only on the basis of a deep rod and not with the assistance of any other measurement tools.” It further recorded that “the quantity that was decided was not on the basis of a robust scientific mechanism, but mostly on primary measurement made with a stick.”

With respect to display of the stock and price board, the Court stated that “the fact of not displaying the stock and price Board of the service station showing opening balance of oil as well as its sale price on the relevant day itself, remain doubtful in absence of any corroborative evidence with regard to the prosecution case.”

The Court further recorded that “the police accompanying the raid turned hostile, the foundation of the complaint remains doubtful and the officers measuring the excess quantity having no knowledge of the slopping of the underground tanks, create a doubt over the correct measurement of the quantity itself.”

It reiterated the settled principle that “in terms of criminal jurisprudence the order of conviction can only be passed after the Court is satisfied that the prosecution has proved the case beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts.”

Also Read: Calcutta High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against Retired WBFC Official Over Loan Recovery Visit To Borrower’s Home, Terms Case An Abuse Of Process

The Court directed that “Hence this criminal appeal stands allowed. The Judgement and order of conviction passed by the learned Special court is hereby set aside. This court records appreciation for the able assistance rendered by the learned Amicus Curiae in disposing of this appeal.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Anirudha Bhattacharyya, Advocate (Amicus Curiae)
For the Respondents: Ms. Manisha Sharma, Advocate; Ms. Pushpita Saha, Advocate

Case Title: Bidhi Chand Chowrasia vs The State of West Bengal
Case Number: CRA 2 of 1993
Bench: Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das