AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.
This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgement and order dated 18th January, 1994 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court,
Burdwan in T.R. Case no. 81 of 1990 by which the appellant was convicted under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act and sentenced
to suffer rigorous punishment of two years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous punishment of six months and to confiscate the
seized paddy to the State.
The prosecution case in short is that Sub-Inspector Nirmalendu Mukherjee of D.E.B. (S), Burdwan submitted a written complaint to the Officer-in-
Charge, Madhabdihi Police Station stating, inter alia, that on 30th May, 1990 between 9.15 and 11.30 hours he along with Constable no. 2726 Rama
Prasad Bose under the supervision of D.E.O. (I), Sadar, Burdwan conducted a raid at Pahalanpur within Madhabdihi Police Station and detected huge
paddy in the premises of the accused/appellant at Pahalanpur just to the western side of main road. The appellant took to the heels on the sight of the
police party and the Police Officer found the weighment equipment at his business premises. He called two local witnesses namely, Debipada Pal and
Dibakar Mirdah, both of Pahalanpur and entered into the business premises, where he detected huge stock of loose paddy along with 43 bags of paddy
inside the shop-cum-godown.
He also detected daily sheets for purchase and sale of paddy on the Gaddi in a room facing to north. From the facts and circumstances stated above,
it could be established that the accused/appellant was dealing with paddy business without any licence. The Police Officer arranged for measurement
of loose stock of paddy of 84 quintals and the total quantity of paddy was 109.80, which was seized along with the scale and weights. The seizure list
was prepared and duly signed by the witnesses. In the above circumstances, the accused had violated the provisions of paragraph 3(1)(a) of the West
Bengal Rice and Paddy (Licensing and Control) Order, 1967. The accused was absconding at that time and subsequently, he surrendered before the
Court. On the basis of the complaint lodged on 30th May, 1990, the above- mentioned case was initiated. After investigation police submitted charge-
sheet against the accused under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act for violation of the provisions of paragraphs 3(1)(a) and 8A of
the West Bengal Rice and Paddy (Licensing and Control) Order, 1967.
Mr. Mukti Chandra Ghosh, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that P.W.1, P.W.2 and D.W.1 deposed in their depositions that the
accused/appellant was a cultivator and had five brothers, who cultivated 20/22 bighas of land yielding double crops in a year and each bigha yields 15-
16/20-22 mounds of rice. The accused was not carrying any business of paddy and the seized paddy was agricultural product of the accused and his
brothers. They lived in a joint mess and the local people knew that the seized paddy was their agricultural product. As they were cultivators in that
area, they maintained measurement scale, weight in their premises and the seized paddy was not actually weighed. The entire paddy was kept under
the jimma of P.W.2, Debipada Pal.
He further submitted that nobody deposed including Sub-Inspector and Constable that they had noticed any customer for purchasing and selling paddy
in the said premises. None had deposed that there was any signboard in the said premises and stock register of purchase of paddy was found in the
premises. There was no whisper of finding out any daily purchase sheets of paddy in the deposition of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3, being Constables in
the raiding party. The local witnesses never stated that the premises in question was the business place of the accused and there was no mention in
the case diary, written complaint or in the seizure list that empty bags were found in the premises.
He also submitted that the raid was conducted between 9.15 and 11.30 hrs. and it was not possible to weigh 109.80 quintals of paddy after filling the
bags with the help of two witnesses during the short time. The Sub-Inspector conceded in his evidence that he did not mention the existence of empty
bags in the premises to fill the paddy and as such measurement of 109.80 quintals paddy was not possible during the short time. P.W.3 deposed that
when raid was conducted, the accused/appellant was not present and he did not know the details of the raid. Therefore, the accused/appellant did not
deal in paddy but the paddy was his agricultural product and as such the accused should be included as producer within the meaning of Section 2(d)
and (m) of the West Bengal Rice and Paddy (Licensing and Control) Order, 1967. The truth of the fact regarding 21 sheets of sale and purchase of
paddy had not been proved by evidence in view of the fact that the Sub-Inspector did not examine the persons mentioned in those sheets and there
was no signature of any witness, although the witnesses were present in the premises in question.
It has been further submitted that the learned Trial Judge (Special Court) has failed to appreciate the fact and depositions as stated above and
accordingly, the appellant is not guilty for violation of the provisions of paragraphs 3(1)(a) and 8(A) of the West Bengal Rice and Paddy (Licensing
and Control) Order, 1967 as the accused is not liable to be convicted under Section 7(I)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Learned
advocate for the appellant has prayed that the appeal be allowed, the impugned order be set aside and the appellant be acquitted. Heard learned
advocates for the parties.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find substance in his argument and the appellant deserves an order of acquittal on that score. Therefore, I set
aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant and the appellant shall be discharged from the bail bonds after six months in terms of
Section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, considering a line of defence as adopted by the appellant herein, I do not like to pass any
order reversing the trial Court’s verdict with regard to confiscation of the seized paddy, rather it stands unaltered, since after a lapse of 24 years, it
lost its relevance.
Accordingly, the appeal, being CRA 39 of 1994, is allowed. Copy of the judgment along with LCR be sent down to the trial court at once for
necessary compliance. Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal
formalities.