-
by sayum
02 April 2026 1:11 PM
“Presumption Under Sections 10C and 14 Stood Unrebutted” – In a significant judgment balancing statutory rigour with reformative sentencing, the Calcutta High Court on 24 February 2026 upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, but granted him the benefit of probation considering the extraordinary lapse of time since the offence.
Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay affirmed the findings of guilt recorded by the Special Court (E.C. Act), Midnapore, yet invoked Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to release the appellant on bond instead of directing him to undergo custodial sentence.
The offence dated back to 30 August 1984.
Seizure of HSD Oil, Kerosene and Fertilizers Without Licence
The prosecution case arose out of an inspection conducted between 11:15 hours and 02:45 hours on 30.08.1984 at the appellant’s oil godown. During the search, authorities seized:
Two hundred litres of High Speed Diesel (HSD) oil,
Two hundred litres of Kerosene oil in barrels,
Multiple bags of urea, potash and phosphate fertilizers.
The appellant failed to produce any licence, stock register, books of accounts, returns or other documents required under:
The West Bengal Motor Spirit & High Speed Diesel Oil (Licensing, Control & Maintenance of Supplies) Order, 1980,
The West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968, and
The Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1957.
He was convicted under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act and sentenced to one year simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, with set-off under Section 428 CrPC.
“Mere Storage Does Not Prove Dealing” – Defence Rejected
The appellant contended that mere storage did not establish sale or dealing and that there was no evidence of commercial transaction. It was further argued that the search was unauthorised and that amendments to Para 11(2) of the Kerosene Control Order, effective from 07.01.1986, could not apply to an incident of 1984.
Rejecting these submissions, the High Court held that the appellant failed to produce any document showing lawful possession or bona fide agricultural use of the seized commodities.
“The appellant failed to produce necessary documents for utilization of the seized articles for agricultural purposes.”
The Court found that the prosecution had successfully proved seizure and non-compliance with the Control Orders. The absence of books of accounts, licence or returns under Para 21 of the Fertilizer (Control) Order strengthened the prosecution case.
Statutory Presumption Under Sections 10C and 14 Not Discharged
A key issue was the interpretation of Sections 10C and 14 of the Essential Commodities Act, which create a presumption of culpable mental state and place the burden on the accused to rebut it.
The appellant argued that he could discharge his burden on the standard of preponderance of probabilities and that his Section 313 CrPC statement was sufficient.
The Court held that the appellant had not discharged the statutory burden.
“The prosecution had been able to prove the fact of seizure… and the appellant had not produced books of accounts and records… nor assigned any reason for non-compliance… it could safely be held that the appellant contravened the provisions… certainly with a culpable state of mind.”
Finding no perversity in the trial court’s appreciation of evidence, the High Court declined to interfere with the conviction.
Amendment to Para 11(2) of Kerosene Control Order – No Relief
Although the appellant argued that the 1986 amendment limiting storage to 10 litres could not apply retrospectively, the Court noted that even otherwise, the appellant had failed to show any valid authority for storing such large quantities.
Thus, the contravention stood independently established.
“After 42 Years, Custody Not Expedient in Interest of Justice”
While upholding the conviction, the Court turned to the question of sentence.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Tarak Nath Keshari v. State of West Bengal (2023 SCC OnLine SC 605), the Court noted that even where a minimum sentence is prescribed under Section 7 of the EC Act, the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 — being a later legislation with a non obstante clause — can override such minimum sentence.
Quoting from the Supreme Court:
“Even if minimum sentence is provided in the EC Act, 1955 the same will not be a hurdle for invoking the applicability of provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.”
The High Court observed that the incident was of 1984, nearly 42 years had elapsed, and the appellant had remained on bail throughout with no reported subsequent offence.
“The appellant to be taken into custody to serve out the sentence would not be expedient in the interest of justice after a lapse of nearly 42 years.”
Release on Probation; Fine Enhanced
In exercise of powers under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, the Court directed:
The appellant shall be released on probation on executing a bond of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties.
He shall maintain peace and good behaviour during the remaining part of the sentence.
Fine enhanced to Rs.20,000/-, payable within 60 days.
In default of compliance, he shall serve out the sentence.
The judgment reinforces two important legal principles:
“Statutory presumptions under Sections 10C and 14 of the Essential Commodities Act cast a real and substantive burden on the accused, which must be discharged by evidence.”
“Minimum sentence under the EC Act does not bar application of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, especially where prolonged pendency and reformative considerations justify leniency.”
While affirming the conviction for unauthorised storage of essential commodities, the Calcutta High Court has demonstrated that sentencing must also account for the passage of time, the character of the offender, and the broader ends of justice.
Date of Decision: 24/02/2026
