IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, DARRANG, MANGALDAI G.R. Case No. 877/2008 (under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act,1955) State of Assam -vs- Sri Sailendra Kalita s/o Sri Pradip Kr. Kalita r/o Village Kamargaon, P.S. Sipajhar District Darrang, Assam... Accused person Present :- Chinmoy Baruah, A.J.S. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Darrang, Mangaldai. Advocates Appeared:- Ms. S.S. Yasmin Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor Mr. MC Rajbangshi, Ms. A Deka, Mr. HK Bhuyan... Learned Advocates for the accused person Charge framed on :- 27.12.2012 Evidence recorded on:- 09.04.2014, 05.08.2014, 15.05.2015 Arguments heard on :-27.05.2015 Judgment delivered on:-29.05.2015 1
J U D G M E N T 1. Prosecution s case, in brief, is that on 22.08.2008 at about 6:30 PM one Sri Balin Kr. Borgohain, Inspector, FCS&CA, Mangaldai had recovered and seized 7 Bags 50 Kgs ( weighing 3 Quintals 40 Kgs) of Public Distribution Systemtargeted rice from the godown of one shopkeeper Sri Sailendra Kalita located at Duni Bazar which were illegally possessed by him and on next day, that is, 23.08.2008 he had lodged an ejahar in this respect. 2. On receipt of the ejahar, Sipajhar PS Case No. 178/08 under Section 406 of IPC read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 was registered and investigated into. During investigation, the accused person was arrested, remanded to judicial detention and subsequently, enlarged on Court bail. On completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer had submitted charge-sheet under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 against the accused person. After submission of charge-sheet, the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate made over the case to my Learned Predecessor-in- Court for disposal. Accordingly, cognizance was taken of the offence as stated in the charge-sheet and summons was issued to the accused person. 3. Copies of relevant documents as required under Section 207 CrPC was furnished to the accused person. On consideration of materials available on record, charge in writing under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 was framed and contents thereof explained to the accused person to which he had pleaded not guilty; but claimed to be tried. 4. During trial, prosecution side had examined 5(one) witnesses. Due to the absence of any incriminating materials, examination of the accused person under Section 313 Cr.P.C was dispensed with. Defense side declined to adduce any evidence on its behalf. 5. I have heard oral arguments advanced by the Learned Counsels for both sides and gone through the entire case record. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION :- 6. Whether on 22.08.2008 at about 6:30 PM at Duni Bazar under Sipajhar PS about 7 bags of 50 Kgs (3 Quintals 40 Kgs) of PDS rice was recovered and seized from the shop s godown of accused person which he had illegally possessed in violation of Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955? 2
DISCUSSION OF EVIDENCE,DECISION AND REASONS THEREOF :- 7. Evidence on record was perused and submissions made by the respective learned counsels duly considered for arriving at a just decision to determine the aforesaid point. The relevant parts of the evidence adduced by prosecution witnesses are unfurled below:- 8. PW 1 had stated in his deposition that about four years back at around 7 PM some policemen came to his shop. They asked him to sign upon a piece of paper and so he had signed upon there. Put to cross examination, PW1 affirmed that apart from some policemen and bystanders, he had not seen anything else then. 9. PW 2 had stated that the accused person is his tenant. That he had met some policemen near his shop rented out to the accused. He was told that it was a case relating to rice and was asked to sign upon a piece of paper, which he did as was told. Put to cross examination, PW2 admitted that he had not seen any rice-sack and even police had not shown him the same. 10. PW 3 had stated in his deposition that one fine day at around 6 PM in the year 2008, he was called to the Burha police outpost by one Sri Mukut Sarma, Secretary, Grahak Suraksha Samiti. After reaching there, the informant had asked him to sign upon a paper. Accordingly, PW 3 had signed upon the same. Put to cross examination, PW3 had admitted that he had signed upon a blank paper. PW3 stated being unaware about the reason for which his signature was taken. 11. PW 4 had stated in his deposition that one fine day in the year 2008 at around 7PM, he along with Bhupen Nath was called to Burha police outpost by one Mukut Sarma, Secretary, Village Grahak Suraksha Samiti. There both of them had signed upon a blank white paper. The informant was present there. Put to cross examination, PW4 admitted that the informant had not explained to them about the reason behind recording of their signatures. 12. PW 5 had stated in his deposition that one fine day in the year 2008 at about 6:30 PM, some policemen came to the shop of accused person. He had seen them arresting the accused person. PW5 was forced to put his signature upon a blank paper. But PW5 is unaware about the reason behind the arrest of accused person. Put to cross examination, PW5 admitted that he knows nothing about the incident. 13. Now on making a careful scrutiny of the materials on record along with appreciation of the adduced evidence, and after hearing the arguments advanced by the respective Learned Counsels, the following facts have assumed prominence, viz., (i) The informant was not examined by prosecution. Hence, the ejahar lodged 3
by him could not be exhibited. He was the most vital prosecution witness and could have provided valuable insight as to how the seizure of the alleged essential commodity was made from the possession of accused person? (ii) It is seen that the signatures of all the examined prosecution witnesses were taken down during investigation. But none had seen the seized goods while giving their signatures. It also appears that none had testified blatantly against the accused person; (iii) In view of the preceding analysis, it is even doubtful as to whether the seized rice was of within the meaning of essential commodity as per the Essential Commodities Act, 1955; and (iv) Also, the investigating officer of the instant case was not examined by prosecution. As a result, valuable insight was lost upon the actual manner in which the investigation of the case was conducted. 14. Therefore, the point for determination is proved in negative and favorably towards the accused person. Thus, while assessing and weighing the entire evidence against the standard of proof in a criminal case, it appears that due to the numerous lacunae in the prosecution s story as discussed above, it is clear that there exists certain reasonable doubts regarding the prosecution s case against the accused person. As such, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused person beyond any reasonable doubt. 15. The accused person is therefore acquitted of the offences under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. He is set at liberty forthwith. Surety remains extended for a further period of six months as per the mandate of the amended Section 437 A CrPC. 16. The seized goods, if not already given on zimma, are to be disposed off in due course as per law. The case is disposed of on contest accordingly. Given under my hand and seal of this court on the 29 th day of May, 2015 in the open Court in presence of both sides. Typed and corrected by me Chinmoy Baruah, AJS Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class Darrang, Mangaldai Chinmoy Baruah, AJS JudicialMagistrate1 st Class 4
Darrang, Mangaldai 5
APPENDIX PROSECUTION WITNESS 1. PW 1----Biren Kalita 2. PW 2----Bolendra Sarma 3. PW 3----Bhupen Nath 4. PW 4----Tafiqar Rahman 5. PW 5----Pankaj Deka DEFENCE WITNESS : None PROSECUTION EXHIBITS/DOCUMENTS: None DEFENCE EXHIBITS/DOCUMENTS : None Chinmoy Baruah, AJS Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class Darrang, Mangaldai 6
7 GR 877/2008