Allowed¶31

Sew Pujan Das and Anr. v. State of West Bengal

Calcutta HC3 Sept 2025CRA/145/1989

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: C.R.A. 145 of 1989; Calcutta High Court; Essential Commodities Act Section 7(1)(a)(ii); West Bengal Imported Vegetable Oil (Prohibition of unauthorised Sale) Order 1984 para 3(2); imported refined rapeseed oil; unauthorised sale/possession; seizure list; search and seizure procedure; Section 100(4) CrPC local witnesses; seizure-list witness denial; no FSL sample; Second Special Judge E.C. Act Calcutta; conviction set aside; appeal allowed after pendency since 1989.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 28.03.1989 set aside and the order passed by the learned Special Judge, E.C. Act, Calcutta set aside; no costs. ¶31

Sew Pujan Das and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal allowed; impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 28.03.1989 set aside and the order passed by the learned Special Judge, E.C. Act, Calcutta set aside; no costs.

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the search and seizure complied with the relevant procedure of the Code of Criminal Procedure, including signing by local witnesses (compliance with Section 100(4) CrPC), on which the seizure-based prosecution case depends. +2 more

¶15

Court's answer

It is a fact that the provision of Section 100(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has not been followed in the search and seizure underlying the prosecution.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

There is contrary evidence regarding the authenticity of the seizure list as to whether the containers were actually seized from the shop room of the accused; one of the accused, being the seizure-list witness, denied and disputed its contents, which creates a cloud of suspicion in the mind of the Court regarding the genuineness, and no other corroborative evidence supporting the prosecution was found.

¶30

Key takeaways

Accordingly the appeal stands allowed and the impugned judgment and order of conviction is liable to be set aside; the order passed by the learned Special Judge, E.C. Act, Calcutta is hereby set aside.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appeal Allowed — High Court of Judicature at Calcutta (Chaitali Chatterjee (Das, J.), 03.09.2025), C.R.A. 145 of 1989: The conviction of the appellants under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act for violation of para 3(2) of the West Bengal Imported Vegetable Oil (Prohibition of unauthorised Sale) Order, 1984, imposed by the learned Second Special Judge, E.C. Act, Calcutta by judgment and order dated 28.03.1989 (appellant no.1 sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs.500/-), was set aside. The seizures of imported refined rapeseed oil (two tins of about 15 kgs each from Sew Pujan Das on 12.07.1987; about 157 kgs from his chakki shop at 106/1 Beniatola Street on 13.07.1987) were evidenced only by seizure lists (Exhibits II and III) bearing no local-witness signatures; the provision of Section 100(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not followed; one of the accused, who was the seizure-list witness, denied and disputed its contents; there was contrary evidence as to whether the containers were actually seized from the shop room, no corroborative evidence supported the prosecution, and no sample was forwarded to the F.S.L. — creating a cloud of suspicion regarding genuineness. Appeal pending since 1989; appeal allowed; no costs.

¶1

Form No. J.(1) Item No.243 Court No. 1

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE

¶4

HEARD ON: 03.09.2025

¶5

DELIVERED ON: 03.09.2025

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS)

¶8

C.R.A. 145 of 1989 Sew Pujan Das & Anr. Vs. The State of West Bengal

¶9

Mr. Yuvraj Chatterjee ………For Amicus Curiae

¶10

Mr. Ranabir Roychowdhury Ms. Snigdha Saha ………..For the State

¶11

JUDGMENT

¶12

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) J.)

¶13

This instant criminal appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 28^th March,

¶14

1989 passed by learned Second Special Judge, E.C. Act, Calcutta convicting the accused/appellants under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act for violation of para 3(2) of the West Bengal Imported Vegetable Oil (Prohibition of unauthorised Sale) Order, 1984 and accordingly, sentenced the appellant no.1 to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-.

¶15

In this case, Mr. Yuvraj Chatterjee, learned advocate has been appointed as Amicus Curiae and has submitted that the judgment and order passed by the learned Court is per se illegal and is liable to be set aside on the ground that the seizure list on the basis of which the alleged goods were seized did not follow the relevant procedure of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No local witnesses signed in the said seizure list.

¶16

¶17

Moreover, no quantity of the said seized as alleged to be rapeseed oil was not collected as a sample and was never forwarded to F.S.L. and no such report was ever placed before this Court. The learned Court considering the said seizure list and the evidence adduced by P.W. 2 and P.W. 4 conducted search and seizure passed such order of conviction.

¶18

The learned Prosecution submitted that the witnesses were examined to prove the case and after assessing the evidence, the learned Trial Court passed such order of conviction. Accordingly, the order was passed following all the procedure and this appeal is liable to be rejected.

¶19

Heard the submission and perused the materials on record.

¶20

On perusal of the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court it is seen that on 12^th July, 1987 at about 9:45 hours two tins of imported refined rapeseed oil each weighing about 15 Kgs. were seized from the possession of the accused/Sew Pujan Das. On enquiry it was learnt that the accused/ Durga Prosad Show supplied the aforesaid rapeseed oil to Sew Pujan Das for unauthorized sale. On 13^th July, 1987, between 10:30 and 11:00 hours about 157 Kgs of rapeseed oil were found in the stock in a chakki shop at 106/1, Beniatola Street of which the accused was the owner without any lawful authority for sale. Accordingly, both the accused violated the provision of paragraph 3(2) of the West Bengal Imported Vegetable Oil (Prohibition of Unauthorised Sale) Order, 1984 having in their possession without any lawful authority.

¶21

Further investigation, a prima facie case was made out and both the accused persons were examined under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to which they

¶22

¶23

¶24

pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, the trial commenced in this case.

¶25

In order to bring home charges, the prosecution adduced four witnesses and relied upon Exhibit I to VIII in support of the case. The defence case as tried to make out as appears from the cross-examination as well as the evidence adduced under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure made by the accused persons i.e. two tins of oil were given by the owner of Chanachur factory and he was carrying those tins. The entire case rests on the two seizure lists, which are marked with Exhibit – II and Exhibit – III respectively. The Exhibit – II, seizure list shows that two tins of rapeseed oil containing 15 Kgs each were seized from the accused on 12^th July, 1987. This document was marked with Exhibit – III. The other seizure list shows the seizure of 18 tins of rapeseed oil and one loose polythin container of rapeseed oil in total about 157 Kgs.

¶26

The learned Amicus Curiae has pointed out that there was no signature of any local witness in the seizure list as can be seen during evidence of P.W. 2 and P.W. 4 corroborated the Exhibit – III as to search and seizure to rapeseed oil contained. P.W. 1, on the other hand, is the seizure list witness did not support the prosecution case about the search and seizure of such rapeseed oil from the shop room of the accused, in fact, those evidence shows the different version as about one year ago in the afternoon, he found that the same loose tins kept on the road, which was showed to him by man in a civil dress. P.W. 2 also said that Exhibit – III shows that search and seizure was made between 10:30 to 11:00 hours. The accused in his evidence said while he was opening

¶27

¶28

¶29

the shop room on 13^th July, 1987, he noticed some tins of rapeseed oil were lying in front of the ration shop and those were being guarded by police.

¶30

This appeal is pending since 1989. When the proceeding was initiated in the year 1987, in fact, there are contrary evidence regarding the authenticity of the seizure list as to whether those containers were actually seized from the shop room of the present accused person. Out of four accused persons one of the accused being the seizure list witness denied and disputed about the contents of the seizure list. It certainly creates a cloud of suspicion in the mind of the Court regarding the genuinity of the complaint. No other corroborative evidence was found, which supports the case of the prosecution and it is a fact that the provision of Section 100(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has not been followed.

¶31