Failure to Prove Mens Rea and Improper Seizure Vitiates Conviction: Calcutta High Court Acquits Retailer Under Essential Commodities Act

“Conviction Cannot Stand When Prosecution Fails to Prove Whose Stock Was Seized and Whether Lawful Procedure Was Followed”, Calcutta High Court set aside a nearly four-decade-old conviction under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Justice Prasenjit Biswas found that the prosecution had failed to establish that the accused violated the West Bengal Baby Food Control Order, 1966, due to the absence of clear proof regarding the seizure source, non-compliance with mandatory procedural safeguards, and lack of mens rea. The judgment strongly reaffirms due process in enforcement actions involving essential commodities.

The case originated from a raid conducted on May 14, 1986, by the District Enforcement Officer (DEO) at the stationary shop of Dwarika Nath Kundu in Gouripur Market, Naihati. The DEO alleged that Kundu, who held a retail license to sell baby food, was found with excess stock—specifically, two tins of Amul Spray—and had issued cash memos without signatures or license numbers, purportedly violating Clause 6(5) of the West Bengal Baby Food Control Order, 1966.

Based on this, a case was filed and the trial culminated in Kundu’s conviction by the Special Judge (E.C. Act) in 1986. He was sentenced to six months of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹5,000, with an additional two months in default. Kundu appealed the judgment.

The High Court examined multiple procedural lapses and evidentiary inconsistencies. A critical flaw identified by the Court was that the very foundation of the search and seizure was defective:

“As per provision of para 17(c) and 17(e) of the West Bengal Baby Food Licensing Order, 1966, the officer must record reasons to believe that contravention is occurring. No such reason was documented. Hence, the entire search and seizure would be vitiated.”

The Court noted with concern that the same officer—PW6—conducted the raid, filed the complaint, requested confiscation, investigated, and submitted the charge sheet. This, it observed, raised serious doubts:

“There is a chance of false impleadment of a person with an offence and that may vitiate the trial.”

Justice Biswas emphasized that the independent witnesses (PW3 and PW4) failed to support the seizure and did not confirm from which shop the seized items were taken. One of them candidly stated:

“I cannot say whether any article was seized from the shop of the appellant.”

The Court also flagged the prosecution’s failure to prove that the accused was present during the raid or that he displayed the disputed stock board. It held that mens rea—a crucial component of offences under the E.C. Act—was not established:

“It is not ascertained as to who displayed the stock cum rate board and therefore the mens rea of the appellant was not proved.”

In addition, the items allegedly seized were never produced before the Court during the trial or appeal proceedings. This created further doubt over the credibility of the prosecution’s case:

“It cannot be ascertained as to what quantity of articles was seized from the appellant’s shop or from the adjoining shop styled as ‘Kundu Brothers’.”

The Court found that the trial was vitiated by procedural irregularities and a lack of credible evidence. It concluded:

“The prosecution has miserably failed to establish its case to that extent that from whose shop the alleged recovery was made.”

Setting aside the conviction, the Court ordered:

“The accused would be released from bail bond forthwith.”

Justice Biswas further directed the Trial Court to be informed immediately of the decision and permitted urgent issuance of certified copies.

This ruling by the Calcutta High Court highlights the judiciary’s role in upholding procedural fairness, especially in criminal cases involving regulatory statutes like the Essential Commodities Act. The judgment serves as a stern reminder that violations must be established through reliable evidence and scrupulous adherence to statutory safeguards. In the absence of both, criminal liability cannot be imposed.

Date of Decision: May 22, 2025