Partly allowed

Jharu Lal Kundu v. the State

Calcutta HC15 Sept 2021CRA/478/1987

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Reference allowed the appellant's appeal against conviction for violating licensing and stock declaration orders. The High Court held that the trial judge erred by overlooking crucial evidence showing seized items were for agricultural use, noting flaws in evidence collection and witness testimony.

What did the court decide?

Appellant acquitted and discharged from custody bail bonds and all conditions.

Jharu Lal Kundu Vs the State — Property and Title | Calcutta HC (2021)

¶1

15.09.2021. 7 AK

¶2

CRA 478 of 1987

¶3

In the matter of: Jharu Lal Kundu

¶4

… Appellant Ms. Priyanka Chowdhury ….Amicus Curiae. Ms. Faria Hossain ….for the state.

¶5

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.

¶6

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.

¶7

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.

¶8

The PW-1 further admits in his witness that no weighment chart of the articles was made. The measurement

¶9

¶10

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.

¶11

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.

¶12

PW-3, another independent witness who also turned hostile, virtually corroborated the statements of the PW-2 on most counts.

¶13

That apart, the evidence of PW-6 is also not particularly corroborative of the prosecution case.

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶16

¶17

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.

¶18

In such view of the matter, the trial court proceeded on an entirely erroneous premise in convicting and sentencing the accused.

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)

Jharu Lal Kundu v. the State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jharu Lal Kundu v. the State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhirendra Nath Jana & Anr. Vs the State

Asgar Ali Vs State of West Bengal

Sk.Anwar Ali Vs the State

Gobinda Chandra Kar Vs the State

Mithu Dolai Vs State of West Bengal

Kutubuddin Sk Vs State of West Bengal