Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Girindra Chandara Das vs The State Of West Bengal on 3 May, 2016
Author: Joymalya Bagchi
Bench: Joymalya Bagchi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Joymalya Bagchi
C.R.A. 445 of 1990
GIRINDRA CHANDARA DAS
Vs.
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Amicus Curiae : Ms. Aindrila De, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Saryati Datta, Advocate
Heard on : May 03, 2016
Judgement on : May 03, 2016
Joymalya Bagchi, J. :
Appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 05.09.1990 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court (E.C. Act), North 24-Parganas at Barasat convicting the appellant 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 (hereinafter referred to as order of 1977) and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four months and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month more.
2
The prosecution case as alleged against the appellant is to the effect that on10.12.1988 between 12.00 hrs. to 12-30 hrs. P.W. 6 along with others conducted a raid at the place of business of the appellant and found 47 pieces of corrugated tin sheets and four pieces of aluminium sheets. The employee of the appellant Sankar Sarkhel could not produce any stock-cum-price board and the stock register at the shop was also written upto 06.12.1988. Corrugated tin sheets fell within the category of essential commodities and as there was no stock-cum-rate board and stock register was not up-to-date, the sheets were seized and a criminal case was started for violation of paragraph 3(2) of the Order of 1977. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed in the instant case.
Substance of accusation was read over to the appellant who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
In course of trial, prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses. The defence of the appellant was one of false implication. It was his specific defence that P.W. 6 had desired to rent a room from him and as he had declined he was falsely implicated in this instant case.
3
The defence examined one witness as D.W. 1, a photographer who took photograph on the date of occurrence which showed that there was a stock-cum- rate board displayed in the shop room.
Ms. De, learned amicus curiae submitted that there is evidence on record particularly the evidence of independent witnesses namely, P.Ws. 1 and 2 who deposed that there was a stock-cum-rate board in the shop. On the other hand, it was the evidence of the seizing officer that no stock-cum-rate board was available in the shop. D.W. 1 has corroborated the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2. Accordingly, she submitted the appellant is entitled to an order of acquittal.
On the other hand, Mr. Datta, learned counsel for the State submitted that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 is unreliable. Even if it is believed to be true, they have not deposed that the stock-cum-rate board was written up-to-date. He accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
P.W. 6 is the defacto complainant and the leader of the raiding party. He stated that on 10.12.1988 he along with other officers raided the shop of the appellant and they found that 51 to 52 pieces of corrugated G.C.I. sheets stored and exposed for sale. The employee of the shop could not produce stock-cum-rate board. The stock register was also not properly maintained. Accordingly, the essential commodities were seized under a seizure list. He proved his signature in the seizure list (exbt. 5/2). FIR was lodged by him. In cross-examination, he 4 stated that they found a stock-cum-rate board for cement only. He however could not state whether there was any aluminium sheets amongst the G.C.I. sheets.
P.W. 5 is another member of the raiding party. He stated that at the time of the raid they found one stock-cum-rate board but the same was found blank relating to G.C.I. sheets. 51 pieces of different size of G.C.I. sheets were found in the shop which were seized under a seizure list and he signed on the seizure list (exbt. 5/2). In cross-examination he admitted that they did not seize the board which was blank. He could not say whether there was 4 pieces of aluminium corrugated sheets among the seized 51 G.C.I. sheets.
P.W. 4 is another member of the raiding party. He stated that they did not find any stock-cum-rate board in respect of corrugated galvanized iron sheets. Accordingly they seized G.C.I. sheets under a seizure list (exbt. 5). In cross- examination he stated that they did not find any stock-cum-rate board for cement.
P.Ws. 1 and 2 are independent witnesses of seizure list. P.W. 1 stated that on 10.12.1988 he was waiting with his taxi at Barrackpore road for passenger. One person came to him along with other persons and hired him and when he went to some extent he found that the said persons entered in a shop. Those persons brought an old man under arrest and obtained his signature on a paper. In cross-examination he said he saw a board 5 but did not read the writings on the board. He identified the board produced by the accused in court as the board he had seen in the shop.
P.W. 2 is another independent witness who has corroborated the evidence of P.W. 1.
P.W. 3 is the Manager of the shop who was present at the time of raid. He stated that he produced the stock book, trade licence to the raiding party. He showed the G.C.I. sheets which were 47 in number and four sheets of aluminium. The members of the raiding party took him in a taxi to the local police station. He signed on the seizure list at the police station. There was a stock-cum-rate board displayed in the shop which was seen by the raiding party. In cross-examination he identified the stock-cum-rate board produced by the accused (material exbt. 1).
P.W. 6 in his chief has stated that there was no stock-cum-rate board. In cross-examination he admitted that there was a stock-cum-rate board in the shop but it was for cement only. If that were so that it was incumbent on the raiding party to seize such stock-cum-rate board and prepare a true copy thereof in the course of raid.
I find there was a stock-cum-rate board in the shop. This is probabilized by the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 who are independent witnesses. They lend support 6 to the evidence of P.W1. 3 and D.W. 1 that there was stock-cum-rate board displayed in the shop.
In the backdrop of such evidence and the absence of the stock-cum-rate board being seized from the place of occurrence or a true copy of the said board being prepared during raid, it is difficult to accept the prosecution version that there was no stock-cum-rate board in the said shop relating to the G.C.I. sheets.
In the light of such discussion, I am inclined to extend the benefit of doubt to the appellant. Accordingly, I set aside the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant and appellant is acquitted of the charge levelled against him.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The appellant shall be discharged from the bail bond under Section 437A Cr.P.C. after six months from date.
Copy of the judgment along with L.C.R. be sent down to the trial court at once.
I record my appreciation for the able assistance rendered by Ms. De as amicus curiae in disposing of the appeal.
(Joymalya Bagchi, J.) Aloke Item no. 350