Probation of Offenders Act Overrides Minimum Sentence in EC Act: Calcutta High Court Grants Probation

In a striking exercise of judicial compassion, the Calcutta High Court upheld the conviction of the appellant under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, but substituted the sentence of imprisonment with a release on probation, invoking the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Justice Prasenjit Biswas, noting the 37-year-old nature of the offence and the absence of any criminal antecedents, observed:

“The appellant to be taken into custody to serve out the sentence would not be expedient in the interest of justice after lapse of 37 years.”

Despite affirming the trial court’s findings, the Court departed from imposing imprisonment, calling instead for a humanistic application of justice in light of the time passed.

“Unauthorized Transport of 23 Quintals of Rice Without License Attracts Conviction”—Court Finds Clear Breach of Control Orders

The case stemmed from an incident dated 07.05.1988, when a truck carrying 23.41 quintals of rice was intercepted by a District Enforcement Officer at Jalangi bus stand, Berhampore. The driver, Subu Roy, and the appellant Chandi Adhikary—who was seated in the truck—could not produce any license or permit for transporting the rice. The prosecution alleged a violation of:

• Para 3 of the West Bengal Rice and Paddy (Licencing and Control) Order, 1967

• Para 3 of the W.B. Rice and Paddy Storage by Consumer Control Order, 1967

• Para 6 of the W.B. Essential Foodstuff (Anti-Hoarding) Order, 1966

The Court noted: “Save and except the driver, this appellant was found in the said vehicle and on asking by the raiding team, he failed to give any document or licence for carrying that huge quantity of rice.”

Upholding the conviction under Section 7(i)(a)(ii) of the EC Act, Justice Biswas held that the appellant was in “clear violation” of the licensing conditions for rice transportation and the conviction was “justified”.

“Complainant Being Investigating Officer Not Illegal Per Se”—Court Rejects Bias Argument

The defence attempted to challenge the fairness of the trial by arguing that the complainant, who also acted as the Investigating Officer, rendered the proceedings biased and unreliable. However, Justice Biswas rejected the argument and clarified:

“The Hon’ble Apex Court held that in cases where informant officer is the Investigator, by that itself it cannot be said that the investigation is vitiated… the accused is not entitled to acquittal unless and until he establishes bias or prejudice.”

Referring to the landmark rulings in Mukesh Singh v. State and Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab, the Court emphasized that the credibility of the prosecution case cannot be discarded merely on the identity of the Investigating Officer unless actual prejudice is shown.

“Probation May Be Granted Even When Minimum Sentence Exists in EC Act”—Court Applies Tarak Nath Keshari Principle

Turning to the question of sentencing, the Court exercised discretion under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, which allows release on good conduct, notwithstanding any contrary provision in a special statute. Justice Biswas underscored:

“Even if minimum sentence is provided in Section 7 of the EC Act, the same will not be a hurdle for invoking the applicability of provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.”

Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Tarak Nath Keshari v. State of West Bengal and Dhurukumar v. State of Maharashtra, the Court granted probation, observing that the appellant had:

• Committed the offence in 1988

• No criminal antecedents

• Maintained peace post-conviction and remained on bail

“I am of the opinion that the appellant convict is entitled to benefit of probation... He has to ensure that he will maintain peace and good behaviour... should he fail... he shall serve out the sentence imposed.”

Sentence Modified but Conviction Remains: “Law Must Punish Guilt, Not Age”

In summing up, the Court recognized the principle that while guilt must not go unpunished, a retributive approach decades later would serve no purpose, especially in absence of repeat behaviour. The final operative portion read:

“Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal being CRA 300 of 1990 stands disposed of… The appeal is allowed in part upholding the conviction and sentence awarded… the appellant is directed to be released on probation.”

Date of Decision: 23 May 2025