Kolkata: Observing that mere suspicion of assumption cannot lead to the conviction, Calcutta High Court set aside the judgement and order of the trial court that convicted a man in 1995 under Essential Commodities Act.
The bench of Justice Ananya Bandopadhyay was moved challenging the judgement and order.
The man was intercepted by the District Enforcement Officer (DEO) and police officers while he was carrying three bags of paddy on his cycle. On enquiring about the paddy, appellant allegedly disclosed that he purchased six maunds of paddy for the purpose of business. The appellant allegedly failed to produce any valid licence or authority for dealing in paddy. The paddy was seized along with the cycle and other articles, and he was arrested.
The amicus curiae representing the appellant submitted that the petition of complaint, treated to be the FIR, did not disclose commission of any cognizable offence.
State counsel submitted that the prosecution was able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the appeal shall be dismissed.
Court observed that the oral as well as the documentary evidence on record failed to establish that the appellant had purchased the paddy for the purpose of trading or selling the same to other people.
Further, the court observed: “Apart from the assertion of 6 maunds of rice to be recovered from the possession of the appellant, the same was not weighed or quantified. Mere suspicion of assumption cannot lead to the conviction of the appellant in dearth of proper evidence.” Observing that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgement and order.