Carrying 35 Litres of Kerosene by Hand Is Improbable; Seizure Lacked Seal and Site Clarity: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted Under Essential Commodities Act

“The prosecution from the inception has stated about 35 litres of kerosene oil when it was never weighed… and no seal or label was affixed on the seized containers” — Calcutta High Court set aside the conviction of Krishna Kamal Paul, who had been sentenced to three months’ imprisonment and fined ₹400 under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for allegedly possessing and transporting 35 litres of kerosene without authorization. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, noting glaring procedural lapses, absence of evidence, and implausibility of the incident narrative.

Allowing the appeal, Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das severely criticised the lower court's decision, concluding that “in the absence of cogent and trustworthy evidence, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused”.

“When Seizure Is Not Made at the Spot and Witness Signs at the Police Station, It Violates Section 100(4) CrPC”

The Court noted a clear violation of procedural safeguards, pointing out that although the seizure list mentioned Kala Hati, Siliguri as the place of seizure, the key independent witness had signed it at the police station — not at the scene.

Justice Das observed: “The seizure list witness is of no help to the prosecution since he put his signature at the police station, not at the time of seizure, which is in gross violation of provision of Section 100(4) CrPC.”

The Court also raised doubt over the credibility of the seizure operation itself, stating that in a bustling commercial area like Kala Hati, it was unusual that no local shopkeeper was examined as a witness or that no evidence was provided to substantiate the claim of seizure in a public place.

The Alleged Seizure of 35 Litres of Kerosene

The case dated back to 7 July 1989, when police officers allegedly caught the appellant carrying two jerrycans and a tin containing a total of 35 litres of kerosene in Siliguri. According to the prosecution, the accused failed to show any purchase receipt or valid license and admitted to having bought the kerosene from a shop named “Ramakrishna Bhandar.” However, the police never investigated or examined the said shop to corroborate the claim.

The trial court had convicted the appellant in Special Court Case No. 19 of 1990, under the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968. That conviction now stands reversed.

Procedural Irregularities: Absence of Sealing, Weighing, and Chain of Custody

The High Court was deeply concerned by the absence of seals or labels on the seized kerosene containers. None of the police officers or seizure witnesses could confirm if the items were weighed or marked in any way at the time of seizure.

The Court remarked: “The evidence of the prosecution witnesses further manifest that there was no seal or label on the container and at the time of alleged seizure also the I.O did not put the seal or label.”

It further noted that although the seizure list mentioned 35 litres, the kerosene was never weighed, and there was no objective verification of the alleged quantity.

This procedural failure severely undermined the prosecution’s case.

Eyewitness Testimony Raised Doubts About Police Version

Independent witness PW4, a local man, admitted during cross-examination that he had been called to the police station, not present during the alleged seizure. He also pointed out the impossibility of a man walking with three large containers holding 35 litres of liquid, and stated that the accused had a cycle, though the police did not seize any such cycle or mention it in official documents.

“A person carrying such huge quantity of 35 litres of kerosene oil with three containers walking through road is difficult to imagine,” the Court noted, casting serious doubt on the very foundation of the prosecution's case.

No Effort Made to Verify Accused’s Explanation

In his Section 313 CrPC statement, the appellant claimed that he had been picked up by police while witnessing a commotion, and that he was made to sign blank papers, later used to implicate him. He further stated that he was never in possession of the kerosene, and only later came to know of the charges against him.

The Court was particularly critical that despite the accused naming the shop “Ramakrishna Bhandar” as the alleged source of the kerosene, no inquiry or verification was ever conducted by the police.

Justice Das remarked:

“It is also surprising that the police did not enquire about the shop wherefrom the accused allegedly purchased the kerosene oil… despite him specifically naming the shop.”

Conviction Set Aside, Appeal Allowed

Citing the fundamental principle that in a criminal trial, the burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the High Court concluded:

“Unless any clinching evidence can be found, and unless the prosecution is able to prove the case beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubt, the view favouring the accused person is to be considered.”

Accordingly, the judgment and conviction passed by the Special Court in 1990 was set aside, and Krishna Kamal Paul was acquitted of all charges.

Date of Decision: 18 September 2025