Failure To Examine Neutral Witnesses Weakens Prosecution’s Case: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Conviction Under Essential Commodities Act
The High Court held that the prosecution’s case was weakened due to its failure to examine independent witnesses who were allegedly present during the seizure, thereby affecting the evidentiary value of the official testimonies relied upon.
Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court set aside the conviction of an accused under the Essential Commodities Act after finding that the evidentiary foundation of the prosecution’s case was undermined by its exclusive reliance on official witnesses.
The Court held that the omission to examine independent observers present during the alleged seizure materially affected the credibility of the seizure and the prosecution’s version.
The High Court was hearing an appeal filed against the judgment of conviction passed by the Special Court under the Essential Commodities Act.
A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Prasenjit Biswas, upon hearing the matter, observed: “the prosecution’s choice to rely solely on official witnesses, despite the availability of neutral observers, creates a substantial dent in the credibility of the prosecution’s version. It raises a legitimate apprehension that the seizure may not have been conducted in the manner claimed, or that the prosecution sought to avoid scrutiny by failing to bring independent witnesses on record. The absence of such corroborative testimony therefore weakens the evidentiary value of the seizure and undermines the prosecution’s attempt to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt”.
Advocate Achin Jana represented the appellant, while Advocate Avishek Sinha represented the respondent.
Background
The prosecution alleged that the appellant was transporting rice without valid documentation, following which officials intercepted the vehicle and claimed to have seized multiple bags.
A written complaint was lodged, and the case was subsequently investigated. Based on the evidence of official witnesses, the Trial Court convicted the accused of violating the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act.
In appeal, the appellant challenged the conviction, arguing that crucial independent witnesses were not examined, the seizure list suffered from inconsistencies, and relevant documents were not produced by the prosecution.
Court’s Observation
The Calcutta High Court examined the written complaint, the seizure list and the oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses and found that the statements of the official witnesses were inconsistent regarding the documents allegedly produced by the accused at the time of interception. While the written complaint stated that certain documents had been handed over, the witness later contradicted this in deposition.
The Court noted that the cash memo book, which was central to the prosecution’s allegation of unauthorised transportation, was not produced. The witness admitted that the relevant pages were allegedly blank, yet the cash memo book itself was never placed before the Court. This omission affected the integrity of the prosecution’s case.
A further discrepancy was identified regarding the person who issued the disputed cash memo. The prosecution did not examine this person, nor did it provide any explanation for such omission. Similarly, the person who drafted the formal complaint was not examined.
The Bench emphasised that, although the testimony of official witnesses is admissible, the non-examination of independent observers who were admittedly present at the time of seizure created serious doubt. It relied on the settled principle that when seizure forms the foundational basis of the prosecution’s case, corroboration from independent witnesses becomes important in the presence of contradictions.
The Court also considered the evidence of the defence witness, who produced documents showing that the seized goods were lawfully purchased. These documents remained unshaken in cross-examination and were accepted as exhibits. The prosecution did not refute this evidence.
After reviewing the record, the Court held that the Trial Court failed to properly assess the contradictions and omissions that significantly weakened the prosecution’s version.
Conclusion
Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and directed that the appellant be discharged from the bail bonds upon compliance with statutory requirements. It held that the prosecution failed to establish the alleged seizure beyond a reasonable doubt.
Cause Title: Dilip Kumar Mondal v. State of West Bengal
Appearances
Appellant: Advocates Achin Jana, Prosenjit Ghosh, Bhaskar Dalui, Chetna Rusagi
Respondents: Advocates Avishek Sinha, Jonaki Saha
