HARENDRA NATH CHAKRABORTY versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Citation: [2008] 17 S.C.R. 1439 · Decided: 19-12-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 17 S.C.R. 1439 
HARENDRA NATH CHAKRABORTY 
v. 
STATE OF \NEST BENqAL 
(Criminal Appeal No.2086 of 2008) 
DECEMBER 19, 2008 
[S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT, 1955: 
A 
B 
S. 7(1)(a)(ii) proviso- Dealer in kerosene - Convicted and 
sentenced to 6 months imprisonment for non-display of stock C 
and prices - Sentence reduced to 3 months by High Court -
Held: As the appeal of the accused was admitted by High 
Court only on the question of sentence, neither High Court 
nor Supreme Court was required to go into merits of the matter 
- However, on merits also, no failure of justice has occasioned 0 
nor was the trial in any way unfair - High Court, having taken 
into consideration entire facts and circumstances, reduced the 
sentence of iinprisonment from six months to three months 
which was tht.9 minimum sentence provided under the 
provision - No case made out to invoke the proviso to 
s.7(1)(a)(ii) particularly in view of the fact that accused was E 
found to have via.fated provisions of both the 1968 Order as 
also the 1977 Order - Sentencing - West Bengal Kerosene 
Control Order, 1968 - West Bengal Declaration of Stocks and 
Prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1971. 
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: 
s. 313 - Examination of accused - Conviction under 
Essential Commodities Act - Plea that prosecution case was 
1 
not specifically put to accused u/s 313 -
Held: Entire 
Prosecution case was based on documentary evidence as G 
also material objects which had been seized - All material 
evidence on record was brought to notice of accused - It was 
for him to explain the same -
He did not adduce any 
evidence in defence - No failure of justice has occasioned 
nor was the trial in any way unfair - Conviction upheld -
1439 
H 
1440 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 17 S.C.R. 
A 
Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 
The appellant was a dealer in Kerosene. He was 
granted licence -under the West Bengal Kerosene Control 
Order, 1968. He was pro~ecuted 'for commission of 
offences punishable under the provisions of the E$sential 
B Commodities Act, 1955 on the charges of non-display of 
stock and price list as requirJd under para 3(2) of the West 
... Bengal (Declaration of Stocks and Prices of Essential 
Commodities) Order, 1977, 'non-maintenance 1of stock 
register as required under para 12 of the order: and that 
c his stock was found short. The trial court held that since 
the Investigating Officer did not verify the cash memos, 
the charge of the stock being short was not proved. 
However, on the charges of non-display of stock and 
price list and non-compliance of Para 12 of,the Order as 
0 
regards maintenance of the stock register,· the accused 
was convicted u/s 7(1 )(a)(ii) of the Act. sentenced to 
imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/ 
-. On appeal, the High Court reduced the sentence to 
imprisonment for 3 months. The accused filed the appeal 
challenging the conviction and sentence. 
E 
Dismissing the appeal, the -court 
HELD:1. No appeal having been preferred by the 
State against the finding of the trial court that the 
prosecution case that the physical stock of kerosene did 
not tally with the expected stock/was not proved, the 
F same must be held to have attain~tl finality. [Para 15 and 
16] [1449-D-E] 
/ 
2. It cannot be said that the judgment of conviction 
and sentence stands vitiated by reason of non-
G compliance of the provisions 
1bf Section 313 of the Code 
of Criminal Procedure, 19.73. It was not a case of 
circumstantial evidence. The entire prosecution case was 
based on documentary e:vidence as also the material 
objects, which had been;.seized. The seizure witnesses, 
namely, P.Ws. 1 and 2, might have been declared hostile, 
H 
HARENDRA NATH CHAKRABORTY v. STATE OF WEST 1441 
BENGAL 
but the seizure memos were duly proved. The seized A 
documents were also proved. The appellant having been 
maintaining the said documents, when discrepancies 
occurring therein were pointed out to him, it was for him 
to explain the same. He did not adduce any evidence in 
defence. The prosecution case based on the basic 8 
primary material brought by it on record, namely, raid in 
the shop, the stock of kerosene found, seizure of display 
board, stock register, cash memo, etc. were put to the 
notice of the accused. Apart from making a bald denial 
that measurement had not been taken or that no 
"Tieasurement chart had been prepared he did not explain C 
the d

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.