No Weighment, No Witness, No Proof of Excess Stock — Conviction Under Essential Commodities Act Cannot Stand: Calcutta High Court Acquits Trader

“Prosecution Failed to Even Establish From Whose Shop The Edible Oil Was Seized — Entire Case Based On Assumptions” - In a case that starkly exposed the procedural hollowness of a prosecution under the Essential Commodities Act, the Calcutta High Court on 24 April 2025 acquitted a trader convicted 36 years ago for alleged hoarding of edible oil, finding the prosecution riddled with contradictions, missing evidence, and a complete lack of legal certainty. Justice Prasenjit Biswas, setting aside the conviction of Arun Kumar Dey @ Arun Dey, remarked with unmistakable clarity, “There is not even an iota of evidence regarding quantity of article seized. It can safely be said that no excess quantity of Banaspati was recovered from the case shop of the appellant.”

The Court held that the conviction, based on alleged violation of Para 3 of the West Bengal Pulses, Edible Oilseeds and Edible Oil (Dealers Licensing) Order, 1978, and Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, was unsustainable in law due to critical lapses including non-production of seized goods, absence of weighment, and the prosecution's failure to establish even the source of recovery.

“When Even The Basic Requirement of Weighment Is Ignored, Conviction Becomes Impossible”

The prosecution’s case rested on a raid conducted on 26 September 1985 at a shop named “Variety Stores” in Rishra, Hooghly, from where 885 kilograms of Banaspati ghee was allegedly recovered. However, the seizure was made in the absence of the accused, and no licence was found with the employee present.

The Court, however, found that the seized goods were not produced before the trial court, no weighment chart was prepared, and the Investigating Officer was not examined. Justice Biswas noted, “PW1, the de-facto complainant, admitted that no weighment was done. PW4 corroborated this, and PW5 confirmed that goods were taken from the back room. This alone casts serious doubt on whether the mandatory procedural requirements were fulfilled.”

The judgment went further: “The zimmadar, in whose custody the commodities were kept, was never examined. No explanation was given for his absence, nor were the commodities produced. The failure is not just procedural — it goes to the very heart of the case.”

“Seizure Witnesses Turned Hostile or Clueless — And Yet Conviction Was Recorded”

The independent seizure witnesses, instead of lending support to the prosecution, further undercut its case. One witness, PW2, admitted that he was simply asked to sign a paper by police without knowing what was seized. Another witness, PW3, stated bluntly that he was made to sign a blank paper, and didn't see the alleged seizure take place.

Even more crucial was the revelation that the goods were recovered from two shops — one belonging to the accused and the other to his brother Barun Dey. Justice Biswas found this contradiction fatal: “The learned trial judge failed to appreciate that the alleged 885 kgs were recovered from two different premises. Once that is admitted, the charge of exceeding permitted limit fails unless the exact quantity attributable to the accused is established.”

The Court declared: “The prosecution has miserably failed to prove from whose shop the goods were recovered, and what was recovered. Without such clarity, there can be no conviction.”

“When the I.O. Is Not Examined and Articles Not Produced, How Can There Be Conviction?”

One of the most decisive points in the Court’s reasoning was the prosecution’s failure to examine the Investigating Officer (I.O.). Calling it a “material lacuna,” the Court held: “The non-examination of the I.O. has caused serious prejudice to the accused. The defence was deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine on procedural compliance or contradictions.”

Justice Biswas further observed that the trial court discarded the independent witnesses without justification, and that doing so fatally damaged the objectivity of the case.

Allowing the appeal and setting aside the conviction, the Calcutta High Court ordered the immediate release of the appellant, declaring: “The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act is hereby quashed.”

What emerges from this judgment is a sharp reminder that economic offences may carry serious allegations, but they too must be proven with the same rigour and procedural fidelity as any other criminal charge.

Justice Biswas concluded the 36-year-long ordeal with words that echo constitutional commitment: “Justice cannot rest on conjecture or assumption — especially where liberty is at stake.”

Date of Judgment: 24 April 2025