Anjan Bose vs State of West Bengal

Kanchan Chakraborty, J.—In this appeal a Judgment dated 28.01.1988 passed by learned Sessions Judge (Essential Commodities Act, 1955), 24-Parganas at Alipore in Special Case No. 8(5)1986 has been challenged. The Hon''ble Special Court found the appellant, Anjan Bose guilty of offence u/s 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for violating the provisions of paragraph 4 of West Bengal Rationing Order, 1964 and paragraph 6 of West Bengal Food Stuff Anti-Hoarding Order, 1966 and convicting him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for fifteen more days. On 02.05.1986, at 13.15 hours G.C. Dutta, S.I., D.E.O. Behala together with other police officers found one Matador Van being No. W.M.V. 709 in front of a medical store by the side of Diamond Harbour Road. The Matador Van was loaded with 25 bags of boil rice weighing 20 quintals 90 Kg. of rice. None was found in the Truck. None has claimed ownership of the rice bags. Accordingly, the officer seized the rice and Matador Van and lodged one F.I.R. which was registered as Behala Police Station Case No. 9 dated 02.05.1986. In course of investigation, the driver of the Matador Van, i.e. the appellant herein and one Asish Sarkar were arrested. Charge-sheet was filed against them and they faced the trial as they pleaded not guilty to the charge framed by the learned Special Judge u/s 7(1)(a)(ii) of Act-X-55.

Learned Trial Court upon consideration of the evidence on record acquitted Asish Sarkar but found this appellant guilty of offence charged with and passed the order impugned.

Mr. Majumder, learned amicus curiae appointed on behalf of the appellant contended that the learned Court below only basing on the statement of one P.W. 3, Joynal Abedin passed the order of conviction without verifying his testimony. The garage register was seized but not placed before the Court. There is doubt as to the responsibility of the appellant as a driver of the Matador Van in question and there is also doubt as to whether the appellant was actually the driver of the Matador Van because the ownership of the Matador Van itself was not established in favour of Joynal Abedin.

Heard Mr. Arnab Chatterjee, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State of West Bengal. He submitted that the garage register was seized but could not be placed before the Court and admitted into evidence for the reason that the I.O. of the case died. He further contended that there was nothing on record to disbelieve the statement of Joynal Abedin, the P.W. 3. Therefore, he contended, that the Judgment impugned is not required to be interfered with.

I have carefully gone through the evidence recorded by the learned Court as well as the seizure list. It is true that 25 quintals and 90 Kg. of boil rice was seized from a Matador Van being No. W.M.V. 709 on 02.05.1986 from Diamond Harbour Road by G.C. Dutta, S.I., D.E.O. Behala who died in course of trial but it was not established at all that Joynal Abedin was the owner of the vehicle. The garage register, which was seized, ought to have been placed before the Court. There was no reason for the prosecution to take a plea that the said register was displaced because of death of the I.O. of the case. Again, no paper, such as, registration certificate, insurance certificate etc. was seized to corroborate the claim of the P.W. 3 that he was the owner of the vehicle and he appointed the appellant as the driver of the Matador Van on that particular date. I have carefully gone through his evidence. He failed to remember the date when the Van was seized. He did not found any article loaded on the Van when he had gone to the Behala Police Station after being informed about the seizure. He said no garage register was seized. He also said that the driver of the Van was responsible for securing parties on hire and he used to take the Van from his custody in the morning and used to pay him money collected by him. He only said that Anjan Bose, i.e. appellant was the driver when the vehicle was seized.

The learned Court accepted the statement of P.W. 3 sacrosanct without getting it verified with the papers relating to the ownership of the vehicle as well as the garage register allegedly seized by the Police. There is doubt as to the factum of ownership as well as the factum that the appellant was the driver of the vehicle on that particular date. The I.O. of the case found the vehicle stranded by the side of Diamond Harbour Road.

I do not find any force in the prosecution case. The evidence recorded by the Court is not sufficient enough to hold the appellant liable for the offence he was charged with. In my estimate, the learned Court ought to have recorded acquittal in place of conviction on proper appreciation of the evidence. Accordingly, I allow the appeal.

The Judgment impugned is set aside. The appellant be acquitted and discharged from the bail bond, if any. A copy of Judgment be given to the appellant. The L.C.R. be sent back to the Court below together with a copy of this Judgment.

Mr. Prabir Majumder, learned Amicus Curiae has rendered a very sincere job as amicus on the request of this Court. This Court thinks that he should be given a token remuneration for the service rendered by him. The Secretary, Legal Service Authorities, High Court, Calcutta is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- to Mr. Prabir Majumder for the service rendered by him as amicus. Let a copy of this Judgment be sent to the Secretary, Legal Service Authorities, High Court, Calcutta.