Once Witnesses Admit Signing Blank Papers and No Actual Seizure Is Proved, Conviction Cannot Stand : Calcutta High Court

“Doubt Regarding Actual Seizure Is Fatal to Prosecution—Blank Signatures Cannot Prove Offence Under Essential Commodities Act”, In a significant reaffirmation of the principles of criminal jurisprudence, the Calcutta High Court on February 6, 2026, set aside the conviction of a rice trader under the Essential Commodities Act, holding that the prosecution had failed to prove the seizure and weighment of alleged excess stock beyond reasonable doubt.

Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das ruled that the trial court erred in convicting the appellant Gouri Sankar Prosad solely based on alleged discrepancies in stock register, despite glaring doubts about the authenticity of the seizure operation.

“The prosecution has not been able to prove the case beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubt,” the Court categorically held while acquitting the appellant of charges under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for alleged violation of Para 17 of the West Bengal Rice and Paddy (Licensing and Control) Order, 1967.

“Witnesses Signed Blank Papers, Never Saw Seizure”: High Court Dismantles Prosecution Story

One of the central pillars of the judgment was the complete collapse of the seizure evidence, with both independent seizure witnesses (P.W. 1 and P.W. 2) admitting that they signed on blank papers and were not present during the seizure or weighment of paddy.

“He did not see the actual seized paddy… he was in the market and was asked to sign the seizure list at a tea stall… he signed only on the assurance of the Investigating Officer,” noted the Court from the testimony of P.W.1 (Para 6).

The second seizure witness, P.W.2, similarly stated he was illiterate, signed on blank documents, and did not witness any seizure or know from where the paddy was taken.

The Court observed that these witnesses were never examined during the investigation, which severely dented the credibility of the prosecution’s version. “Such evidence rendered the seizure doubtful and unreliable,” the Court concluded (Paras 11–12).

“Failure to Prove Actual Weighment of Paddy Is Fatal”: Court Points to Absence of Material Witnesses

A glaring omission in the prosecution case was the absence of any witness who actually conducted the weighment of the seized paddy—critical in a case alleging storage of 33.5 quintals in excess.

“There is nothing on the weighment chart to show who actually weighed the paddy… no evidence as to the source of the weighing machine,” the Court noted, adding that in a case founded on the precise quantum of stock, such failure was fatal to the prosecution case (Paras 8, 10, 12).

Even the Investigating Officer (P.W.4) could not name the person who carried out the weighment, nor did he explain why the relevant diary entries or seizure-related documents were not contemporaneously recorded.

“When Seizure Is Disputed, Absence of GD Entry and Identification of Raiding Party Raises Serious Doubt”

The Court took strong exception to the non-recording of General Diary (GD) entries regarding the departure and return of the raiding team, holding that while such lapses are not always fatal, they assume critical importance when the very raid is under challenge.

“The witness could not give the name of the driver of the police jeep or the number of the jeep. He admitted that no witness signed the seizure list at 2:30 p.m. This inconsistency, along with the failure to produce the GD register, cast serious doubt on the entire seizure process,” the Court stated (Para 12).

The timing of the seizure list also came under scrutiny. While prosecution witnesses claimed the raid happened between 9:30 a.m. to 12:15 p.m., one of the seizure witnesses (P.W.1) stated he was asked to sign documents at 2:30 p.m. at a market tea stall, indicating that the seizure list was not prepared at the spot, further eroding the prosecution’s credibility.

“Conviction Cannot Be Based on Conjectures or Improper Stock Register Alone”: Court Emphasises Presumption of Innocence

The trial court had acknowledged the scope of doubt regarding the seizure of 75 quintals of paddy but nonetheless convicted the accused on the ground that his stock register was not properly maintained.

The High Court strongly rejected such reasoning, reminding that mere administrative irregularities do not substitute for proof beyond reasonable doubt, especially in criminal prosecution.

“In criminal jurisprudence… once a court has a doubt, unless it's cleared from proof beyond doubt, the court must be loath in passing the order of conviction,” the High Court reiterated (Para 13).

Accordingly, the Court held that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden, and benefit of doubt must go to the accused.

Appeal Allowed – Conviction and Sentence Set Aside

Allowing the criminal appeal, the High Court set aside the conviction dated 30.03.1993 passed by the Special Court (E.C.), Suri, in Special Case No. 33 of 1992, and acquitted the appellant of all charges under the Essential Commodities Act.

The Court also recorded its appreciation for the assistance rendered by Amicus Curiae, Advocate Mr. Soham Banerjee, in bringing out the legal issues that had gone unnoticed at trial.

Date of Decision: 06.02.2026