Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Jharu Lal Kundu vs Unknown on 15 September, 2021
15.09.2021.
AK
CRA 478 of 1987
In the matter of: Jharu Lal Kundu
... Appellant
Ms. Priyanka Chowdhury
....Amicus Curiae.
Ms. Faria Hossain
....for the state.
After hearing learned Amicus Curiae as well as learned
counsel for the State, it appears that the Trial Judge
proceeded on an erroneous premise by overlooking the
crucial evidence of several witnesses, which demolishes the
prosecution case itself.
At the outset, the PW-1 categorically admitted in his
cross-examination that no sketch map of the locality was
prepared and there was a rate-cum-stock board which was
written with chalk. The stock board, after seizure, was not
properly covered with paper or sealed up. PW-1 further goes
on to admit that no precautionary measure was taken so
that the writings on the board may be erased after seizure.
The particulars of the rooms where the seized articles
were found were not mentioned in detail in the seizure list as
per the admission of PW-1 himself.
The PW-1 further admits in his witness that no
weighment chart of the articles was made. The measurement
of the diesel, admittedly, was made with the help of a stick
but it has not been mentioned in the written complaint as to
how the diesel oil was measured. No list of measurement of
diesel oil was also prepared.
PW-2, an independent witness, categorically stated that
the rate-cum-stock board was found displayed in the shop of
accused, on which price chart was given. PW-2, who was
declared hostile by the prosecution, also identified the stock
board which was marked as Exhibit-1. It is seen from the
cross-examination of the said independent witness (PW-2)
that the accused has cultivable land on which he grows rice,
pulses, paddy, til, chhola etc. and also has a shallow
machine which is run by diesel.
PW-3, another independent witness who also turned
hostile, virtually corroborated the statements of the PW-2 on
most counts.
That apart, the evidence of PW-6 is also not particularly
corroborative of the prosecution case.
Rather, it appears from a comprehensive reading of the
entire evidence of the witnesses that there was sufficient
proof that the articles seized might have been intended to be
used for agricultural purposes by the accused.
It further appears that a token of renewal of licence was
marked as Exhibit-B and the relevant papers might have
been deposited with the authorities.
In such view of the matter, there is inherent
contradiction in the prosecution case and the charges
against the accused were not established at all, either under
paragraph 18(1) of the West Bengal Rice and Paddy
(licensing and control order) 1967 or Section 3(2) of the West
Bengal Pulses and Edible Oil Seed and Edible Oils Dealer
1978, under Para 3(2) of the West Bengal Declaration of
Stock and Prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1979 and
/or paragraph 3(1)(5)(7) of the West Bengal Motor Spirits and
HSD Oil (licensing control and manufacture) Order 1980.
In such view of the matter, the trial court proceeded on
an entirely erroneous premise in convicting and sentencing
the accused.
Accordingly, CRA 478 of 1987 is allowed, thereby
setting aside the judgment and order dated October 30, 1987
passed by the Judge, Special court (E.C Act) Nadia,
Krishnanagar E.C. Case No. 16 of 1987/T.R. No.24 of 1987.
The appellant is acquitted and discharged from
custody, if he is at present under incarceration, as well as
discharged from all conditions and bail bonds, if furnished
by the appellant at any point of time for obtaining bail.
The extreme co-operation of learned counsel for the
State as well as the invaluable help rendered by learned
Amicus Curiae is appreciated by this court.
(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)
