Appellant Is Entitled to Probation Despite Minimum Sentence under EC Act: Calcutta High Court Applies Reformative Justice in 30-Year-Old Essential Commodities Violation

“Even if minimum sentence is provided in the EC Act, the same will not be a hurdle for invoking the applicability of the Probation of Offenders Act.” — Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay

In a landmark ruling that underscores the judiciary's commitment to reformative justice, the Calcutta High Court granted the appellant the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, setting aside the custodial sentence imposed nearly three decades ago under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay, while disposing of the appeal, held that in view of the lapse of almost 30 years since the date of offence in 1995, and the appellant’s consistent conduct during trial and appeal, reform rather than imprisonment was the appropriate course.

“Trial was based on shaky evidence — majority of prosecution witnesses turned hostile”

The appellant was convicted on 18 March 1997 by the Special Court under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the EC Act for violating:

• Clause 3(1) of the West Bengal Rice and Paddy (Licensing and Control) Order, 1967

• Clause 3(2) of the West Bengal Declaration of Stock and Price of Essential Commodities Order, 1977

He was sentenced to three months' simple imprisonment and fined ₹300, with default imprisonment of 30 days.

The defence pointed out that out of ten prosecution witnesses, eight were declared hostile, and the remaining two — including police witnesses — gave contradictory statements. The alleged seizure took place not from the appellant’s shop but from his brother’s grocery store, and he was called from home after the raid.

“The Trial Judge relied heavily on the testimonies of PW-9 and PW-10, despite contradictions and absence of corroborative material evidence,” the appellant submitted.

“Court can reduce sentence below minimum under EC Act when Probation Act applies”

Justice Bandyopadhyay referred to the Supreme Court’s recent judgment in Tarak Nath Keshari v. State of West Bengal (2023 SCC OnLine SC 605), where the Apex Court ruled that even if the EC Act prescribes a minimum sentence, the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958—being a later enactment with a non obstante clause—would override it.

“Even if minimum sentence is provided in Section 7 of the EC Act, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of probation, the EC Act being of the year 1955 and the Probation Act of 1958.”

The Court emphasized that Section 4 of the Probation Act allows the Court to release a convict on bond instead of sentence, considering factors like age, conduct, character, and the circumstances of the offence.

“30 years of peace, no repeat offence — incarceration now serves no public interest”

Noting that the offence took place in 1995, and the appellant had remained on bail throughout the legal proceedings without any further criminal involvement, the Court found:

“To take the appellant into custody to serve out the sentence would not be expedient in the interest of justice after a lapse of nearly 30 years.”

Accordingly, the Court directed:

“The appellant is to be released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, on entering into a bond of ₹5,000/- to ensure peace and good behaviour for the remaining sentence.”

The fine was enhanced to ₹5,000, to be paid within six months, failing which the appellant would be liable to serve the sentence.

Final Observations: No need for custody where reform has already occurred

Justice Bandyopadhyay closed the judgment with appreciation for the amicus curiae and directed the Trial Court records to be returned for necessary action.

“The principles of justice must remain rooted in equity and the recognition of individual transformation over time.”

Date of Decision: 21 April 2025