Criminal Conviction Under Essential Commodities Act Cannot Rest On Stock Measurement Done With 'Stick': Calcutta High Court
Observing that a criminal conviction cannot rest on doubtful stock measurement done with a stick and unsupported by reliable independent witnesses, the Calcutta High Court has set aside the conviction of a petrol pump operator under the Essential Commodities Act, holding that the prosecution failed to prove violation of stock and display requirements beyond a reasonable doubt.Justice...
Observing that a criminal conviction cannot rest on doubtful stock measurement done with a stick and unsupported by reliable independent witnesses, the Calcutta High Court has set aside the conviction of a petrol pump operator under the Essential Commodities Act, holding that the prosecution failed to prove violation of stock and display requirements beyond a reasonable doubt.
Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das allowed a criminal appeal filed by Bidhi Chand Chowrasia and overturned the 1992 conviction recorded by a Special Court under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act for alleged shortage of high-speed diesel (HSD) stock and non-display of stock and price information.
The Court found that the alleged shortage of 279 litres was determined through an unscientific method, as enforcement officials measured fuel in underground tanks using only a stick without preparing any calibration chart, without considering tank slope, and without accounting for evaporation or handling loss.
“The quantity that was decided was not on the basis of a robust scientific mechanism, but mostly on primary measurement made with a stick.”
The Court also noted that most seizure and independent witnesses turned hostile, including the constable who accompanied the raid, thereby weakening the prosecution's version. In such circumstances, reliance solely on official testimony was held unsafe for sustaining a criminal conviction.
On the allegation that the petrol pump had displayed a board stating “oil not available,” the Court found the evidence doubtful, observing that the board was removable and kept inside the premises, with no clear proof that it was actually displayed.
Further, the stock registers showed matching entries and evidence indicated that 750 litres of diesel had been legitimately sold on the same day, which contradicted the theory of suppression or hoarding.
Holding that the prosecution failed to establish violations beyond reasonable doubt, the Court reiterated:
“In terms of criminal jurisprudence the order of conviction can only be passed after the Court is satisfied that the prosecution has proved the case beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts.”
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the conviction and sentence were set aside.
Case Title: Bidhi Chand Chowrasia v. State of West Bengal
Case No.: CRA 2 of 1993