The Special Court acquitted the appellant, who was convicted for trading without a license and possession of excess stock under the E.C. Act, finding the prosecution failed to prove ownership of the shop or seizure of the articles beyond reasonable doubt.
Appellant found not guilty; impugned order of conviction set aside; discharge from bail bond.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
sg
CRA 399 of 1988
Court 8
Mantu Mondal Versus State of West Bengal
Mr. Prabir Majumder, Adv. Mr. Snehansu Majumder, Adv.
…for the Appellant.
Mr. Narayan Prasad Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Pratick Bose, Adv.
…for the State.
This appeal is directed against a judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, E.C. Act, Nadia, Krishnagar, on 13th August, 1988 in E.C. Case No. 16 of 1988.
Prosecution case in short is that – on 24th April, 1988 in between 5 PM and 6 PM, the District and Enforcement Officer, Chapra along with other had been to the pulses shop of the accused person situated by the side of Krishnagar-Karimpur road. The accused person was running the shop at the relevant point of time without maintaining any rate-cum-stock board. On physical verification, 13 quintals 90 kgs of mushuri pulses in 14 bages and 80 kgs of chhola in another bag were found. The accused person did not have any licence. But he has found to have been possessing more than 10 quintals of mushuri pulses illegally. The accused person was arrested and the articles found in the shop were seized by the D.E.O. On the basis of a complaint from the D.E.O., Chapra P.S. Case No. 25/88 case was registered under Section 7(i)(a)(ii) of the E.C. Act. The accused person however denied the allegations and claimed to be tried. Learned Trial Court having considered the evidence on record and convicted the accused for committing offence under section 7(i)(a)(ii) of the E.C. Act.
Aggrieved by the order of conviction, this appeal has been preferred.
To bring home charges prosecution examined as many as five witnesses. P.W. 1 Noor Mohammad Mondal stated that the accused did not deal with grocery articles by the side of the pacca road. The witness was declared hostile of the prosecution. Mr. Noor Mohammad Mondal denied to have witnessed seizure of mushuri pulses weighing about 1320 kgs.
P.W. 2, Ajit Kumar Chakrabarty, is the SI of Police attached to D.E.B., Nadia, who, during evidence in chief parroted the complaint and his signature on the seizure list was admitted as an Exhibit 1/1. During cross-examination, he could not say how the shop room was identified and by whom. No sketch map was prepared. He admitted the existence of one haat (big market in rural area). He could not say if any person was examined during the raid to ascertain the ownership of the shop.
P.W.-3, Basudeb Halder, stated that the accused person had no grocery shop of his own. He was declared hostile by the prosecution. He did not tell the I.O. that the accused was present in the shop at the relevant point of time. During cross-examination, he failed to assign any reason behind his putting signature on the seizure list.
P.W. 4, Utpal Kanti Guha, is an A.S.I. of Police who registered the Chapra P.S. Case No. 25 of 1988 on the basis of a written information given by S.I., Anil Kumar Manna. FIR was admitted as Exhibit 4.
P.W. 5, Anil Kumar Manna, narrated the prosecution case regarding inspection held on 24th April, 1988 by the team D.E.B. Officers led by him. He stated that Mantu Mondal was found to have been in his possession more than 100 kgs mushuri pulses but he did not have any licence. Mantu Mondal was arrested. All the articles were seized. The seizure lists are marked as Exhibits 1/2 and 1/3. The accused person was arrested from the spot. He informed the police in writing about the incident. Exhibit-5 is the said written information.
After examination of the witnesses and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed. During cross-examination, he failed to say who identified
the shop of the accused. He did not seize any document to substantiate ownership of the accused person in respect of the alleged shop room or the business. No other witnesses were examined.
After appreciating the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses, I do not fine any cogent evidence to hold that the accused person is the owner of the shop wherefrom the alleged seizure was made. There is no convicting evidence that the seized articles were owned by the accused person. The accused person was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A question was put by the learned Trial Court that the accused person violated various government orders without specifying the one, that made the accused culpable. In fact, no order was produced before the learned Trial Court, which was violated by the accused person. Factum of seizure was also not proved.
Having considered the materials on record, I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt. In my opinion, the impugned order of conviction should not be allowed to remain in force and should be set aside, which I accordingly do. The accused person is found not guilty of the charges under Section 7(i)(a)(ii) of the E.C. Act. The accused person is discharged from bail bond. More than 30 years since have elapsed, there is no point in directing the State to return the seized articles i.e. pulses to the person from whom seized.
Consequently appeal succeeds.
CRA 399 of 1988 is disposed of accordingly.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment be given to the parties, if applied for, on usual undertakings.
(Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was the owner of the shop where the alleged seizure occurred.
Whether the government order allegedly violated by the accused was produced before the trial court.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mantu Mondal
State of West Bengal
Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
