Narayan Chandra Mondal vs The State Of West Bengal
2021 Latest Caselaw 4891 Cal

AD. 4.

September 16, 2021.

MNS.

C.R.A. No. 249 of 1991

(Via Video Conference)

Narayan Chandra Mondal Vs.

The State of West Bengal

Ms. Suchismita Dutta

...learned Amicus Curiae.

Ms. Shreyoshi Biswas

...for the State.

Although the appellant has expired during pendency of the

appeal, the appeal is taken up for hearing since there is a fine

component in the impugned sentence.

Learned Amicus Curiae points out that PW3, one of the

independent seizure witnesses, specifically stated in his examination-

in-chief that the mill-in-question was closed at the juncture of seizure

and that the accused was not even present at that time, but was

called from elsewhere (the market) at the behest of the Investigating

Officer. It is further stated by PW3 that the rice, which was kept at the

place of occurrence, belonged to PW3 and not the accused.

That apart, PW3 (who was subsequently declared hostile) also

alleges that his signature, taken on the seizure list, was taken under

force.

Learned Amicus Curiae places reliance on the judgment

reported at AIR 1975 SC 2198, where the Supreme Court, in

paragraph- 7 thereof, categorically opined that if the shop-in-question

is not open at the relevant point of time, there is no necessity for a

board containing the necessary particulars to be displayed.

Since the mill was closed at the relevant juncture, it is

contended that the same proposition as laid down by the Supreme

Court is applicable to the present case as well.

That apart, there is corroborative evidence of the fact that the

rice found at the site of seizure belonged to others, and not the

accused and had been stored there due to a flood.

Moreover, the statement of the Investigating Officer (PW7), as

regards samples of the articles having been recovered, as found in

the suo moto complaint, has been contradicted in the cross-

examination of PW7 himself.

Learned Amicus Curiae further contends that, although the

complainant had alleged that the accused fled from the site when the

said Officer reached the said place, such statement is patently

contradicted by one of the independent witnesses, who was declared

hostile subsequently.

Over and above, the learned Amicus Curiae categorically

argues that Para- 3 of the West Bengal Rice and Paddy (Licensing

and Control) Order, 1967 (in short "the 1967 Order") clearly takes

within its purview the stock of the accused; but in the present case,

the goods seized belonged to others, as per the admission of the

independent witnesses themselves, and not to the accused, thereby

taking the accused/appellant outside the mischief of the said

provision.

Learned counsel appearing for the State controverts such

submissions of learned Amicus Curiae and contends that there were

sufficient materials on record to convict the appellant.

Upon going through the materials on record, it is seen that the

submission made by learned Amicus Curiae have to be accepted in

its entirety, since the discrepancies pointed out by learned Amicus

Curiae in the evidence of the independent witnesses as well as the

prosecution itself are glaring.

The proposition laid down in AIR 1975 SC 2198 is squarely

applicable in the present case as well, since the mill of the accused,

by corroborative evidence, was shown to have been closed at the

time of seizure.

That apart, as rightly argued by learned Amicus Curiae, para- 3

of the said 1967 Order is not applicable in view of several witnesses

having admitted that the stocks found by the complainant belonged to

others and not to the accused.

As such, it is clearly borne out by the materials on record that

the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant were based on

no material at all and, as such, perverse.

Hence, C. R. A. 249 of 1991 is allowed, thereby setting aside

the judgment and order dated July 24, 1991 passed by the Judge,

Special Court (E.C.Act), Raiganj, District- West Dinajpur, in Special

Case No. 6 of 1990 and acquitting the appellant posthumously of all

the allegations levelled against him.

I would fail in my duty if I omit to note that the learned Amicus

Curiae, who is a junior member of the Bar, extended invaluable and

competent assistance to the Court to come to the above decision.

Such effort on the part of the learned Amicus Curiae is appreciated.

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)