Failure to Examine Who Actually Weighed the Paddy is Fatal—Stock Discrepancy Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction: Calcutta High Court on Essential Commodities Act Prosecution

“In Offence Based on Excess Quantity, Identity of Person Who Weighed Contraband Is Crucial—Prosecution Cannot Rely on Abstract Figures Without Proof”, Delivering a strong message on the necessity of material evidence in criminal trials, the Calcutta High Court ruled that failure to examine the person who physically weighed the alleged excess stock of paddy was a fatal omission, rendering the conviction of the appellant under the Essential Commodities Act unsustainable in law.

Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das, while allowing the appeal in CRA No. 79 of 1993, categorically held that in a prosecution grounded entirely on the allegation of excess stock, the burden lies squarely on the prosecution to establish the weight with cogent and admissible evidence, failing which the entire foundation of the charge collapses.

“No person was examined who actually weighed the paddy when the specific allegation is storing of excess paddy. No evidence that weighing machine was taken from whom. That apart, it was specifically stated that there is nothing on the weighment chart to show who conducted the weighment,” the Court observed (Para 12).

The conviction of Gouri Sankar Prosad under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 was thus set aside, with the Court stating that stock discrepancies reflected in registers cannot by themselves prove guilt, especially when procedural safeguards and primary evidence are ignored.

Background: Conviction Based on Alleged 33.5 Quintals of Excess Paddy Found During Raid

The prosecution alleged that during a raid conducted on 7 June 1992, the accused was found storing 75 quintals of paddy, while his stock register accounted for only 41.50 quintals, suggesting a discrepancy of 33.5 quintals. This alleged violation of Para 17 of the West Bengal Rice and Paddy (Licensing and Control) Order, 1967 formed the basis of the charges.

While the Trial Court convicted the appellant, relying on the register entries and weighment chart, the High Court found deep procedural lapses, including absence of General Diary entries, non-examination of material witnesses, and unexplained contradictions in seizure timings and documents.

“Weighment Chart Unsigned, Source of Machine Unknown—No Evidence on How Seizure Was Quantified”

The High Court specifically noted that the weighment chart (Exhibit 4) was silent on who conducted the weighment, and no witness from the raiding party could explain how the paddy was weighed or where the machine came from.

Even the Investigating Officer admitted under cross-examination that he could not name the person who weighed the stock and that no details were recorded regarding weighment procedures.

“In a case alleging storage of excess quantity, where the offence arises from the factual assertion of weight, failure to establish how and by whom weighment was done makes the allegation speculative,” the Court emphasised (Paras 8–10).

The Court further questioned how the prosecution expected to sustain a conviction based on a chart with no author, no witness, and no verification—especially when even the seizure witnesses disowned knowledge of any weighment.

Stock Register Discrepancies Do Not Replace Need for Concrete Proof

Justice Chatterjee Das also cautioned against confusing regulatory lapses with criminal guilt, noting that the trial court erred in relying solely on apparent inconsistencies in the stock register while ignoring the foundational gaps in the prosecution’s proof.

“Once reasonable doubt exists as to the core fact—i.e., the presence of excess stock—no amount of book-keeping errors can justify a conviction under the Essential Commodities Act,” the Court held (Para 13).

This position reflects a clear adherence to the presumption of innocence and the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt, especially where economic offences involving serious penal consequences are involved.

Conviction Cannot Survive Without Primary Proof of Contraband Quantity

In setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Court (E.C.), Suri, the High Court reaffirmed that criminal conviction cannot be based on assumptions, extrapolations, or procedural shortcuts, particularly when the case hinges on quantitative discrepancies.

“In criminal jurisprudence, conviction cannot rest on conjectures or procedural presumptions—proof must be direct, credible, and tested,” the Court declared, while also appreciating the detailed submissions of Amicus Curiae, Mr. Soham Banerjee, in exposing the critical evidentiary failures in the case.

Date of Decision: 06.02.2026