Double Presumption of Innocence Bolsters Acquittal When Evidence Falls Short: Calcutta High Court Upholds Essential Commodities Act

Calcutta High Court upheld the acquittal of Sankar Bose and others in a criminal appeal brought by the State of West Bengal. Presiding over the case, Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay confirmed the decision of the Special Court (E.C. Act) in Cooch Behar, which found the defendants not guilty of violating Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. This ruling underscores the "double presumption of innocence" principle, strengthening the acquittal granted by the trial court.

This appeal originated from a raid conducted on March 28, 1984, by Mr. D.K. Dey, an Inspector of Police with the District Enforcement Branch (D.E.B.), who seized 15 tins of rapeseed oil from an adjacent godown to the scrap iron shop owned by the accused. The police alleged that the accused had failed to maintain proper documentation, including stock and account books, required for storing the commodity. Upon trial, the Special Court acquitted the accused on September 24, 1985, citing insufficient evidence of ownership and possession of the godown from which the rapeseed oil was confiscated.

The main legal questions revolved around (1) the ownership and possession of the godown where the rapeseed oil was seized and (2) the quality of the prosecution's evidence. The prosecution’s position relied on testimonies and an Analyst's Report, claiming the rapeseed oil was adulterated and unfit for consumption. However, the defense highlighted critical contradictions in witness statements and the lack of documentation proving the accused’s connection to the seized goods.

Justice Bandyopadhyay referred to the Supreme Court's observations in Anwar Ali v. State of H.P. and similar cases, where the court emphasized that “double presumption of innocence” applies when an appellate court reviews a lower court's acquittal. This principle reiterates that if two reasonable conclusions can be drawn from evidence, the acquittal should not be overturned.

Prosecution's Inconsistent Evidence: The court found the prosecution witnesses' accounts contradictory, with discrepancies in testimonies about the ownership and possession of the godown. For example, PW-2, a seizure list witness, testified that no weighment was conducted in his presence, conflicting with the prosecution’s account.

Ownership and Possession Not Proven: The trial court noted that the prosecution failed to present any documents proving ownership or tenancy of the godown by the accused. The court underscored that without concrete evidence establishing this connection, the defendants could not be held liable for storing the seized tins.

Analyst’s Report Limited to One Sample: The report analyzed oil from only one tin among the seized lot, which the court determined insufficient to conclude that all tins contained adulterated oil.

Supreme Court Principles on Acquittal Appeals: Citing precedents, the High Court underscored that unless findings are "perverse or impossible," appellate courts should avoid interference with acquittals. The court reaffirmed that, barring clear error, acquittals carry a strengthened presumption of innocence.

Ultimately, Justice Bandyopadhyay dismissed the appeal, concurring with the trial court that the prosecution had not sufficiently established ownership or possession of the seized commodities by the accused. The court’s reliance on the principle of double presumption of innocence reflects its stance on upholding acquittals unless compelling reasons exist for overturning them.

Date of Decision: November 7, 2024