Purna Mondal & Ors. vs State of West Bengal

Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.

This appeal arose out of a judgement and order dated 30th April, 1984 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Burdwan in T.R. No. 4 dated 4th

November, 1982 convicting the appellants under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act and sentencing to suffer rigorous imprisonment

for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months each. The seized rice

and the boat be forfeited to the State.

The prosecution case in short is that on 4th November, 1982 at about 8.45 hours the accused persons were found to carry 34 bags of boiled rice owing

2820 kgs. by a boat from Kalna Thane Ghat in the district of Nadia on the other side of the Ganges. The Police intercepted the boat and demanded

the documents for carrying the said rice, but the accused persons failed to produce any documents or papers and as such the Police arrested them and

seized the rice and boat. After seizing, the same was given to zimma to some other persons.

Accordingly, a case, being Kalna P.S. Case no. 4 dated 4th November, 1982, was started and after investigation the Police submitted charge-sheet

against the accused/appellants for violation of the provisions of paragraph 3(2)(a) of the West Bengal Rice and Paddy (Licensing and Control) Order,

1967. Accordingly, the accused/appellants faced trial and pleaded not guilty and thereafter, upon taking evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the

defence witnesses, the learned Judge tried the case.

At the very outset Mr. Bidyut Kumar Halder, learned advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that Purna Mondal, being the appellant no.1 and

Radha Krishna Kirtania, being the appellant no.4, have expired. As such, the appeal relating to the appellant nos. 1 and 4 stands abated. Learned

advocate for the appellants has submitted that Sricharan Sardar, being the appellant no.2 and Shanti Mondal, being the appellant no.3 were the owners

of agricultural land and also they were the bargadars. They were carrying their own products, i.e. 34 bags of boiled rice and they accumulated their

earning of the year for selling the rice in the nearby market and they did not purchase the same for business purpose.

He has further submitted that the learned Judge ought to have considered that the appellants were neither hordes nor smugglers but they were

cultivators and possessed land on both sides of the Ganges. He has further submitted that the prosecution witnesses could not prove the charges

beyond reasonable doubt and falsely implicated the accused/appellants. Lastly, he has submitted that the accused/appellants were not the owners of

the vehicle, they hired the vehicle for carrying the rice and before confiscation of the vehicle no notice was given to the owner of the vehicle and as

such, the impugned judgement and order passed by the learned Judge is illegal and without jurisdiction. He has prayed for setting aside the impugned

judgement and order dated 30th April, 1984.

I have also heard learned advocate for the State and perused the impugned judgement. After perusal of evidence, I find that as no document could be

seized from the appellants, who were farmers by profession as deposed by the witnesses and were carrying 34 bags of rice, which they had produced

as farmers, it cannot be said that the appellants were engaged in business. Therefore, the impugned order is thus quashed and set aside. The appellant

nos. 2 and 3 are acquitted of the charge levelled against them and they are discharged from their bail bonds.

However, considering a line of defence as adopted by the appellants 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 34 years, it lost its relevance. Accordingly, the appeal, being

CRA 216 of 1984, 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