The Court held that where the complainant is also the investigating officer and no independent witnesses are examined in support of seizure, serious prejudice is caused to the accused, and the prosecution case may fail for lack of fair and impartial investigation. The judgment follows the approach in Mukesh Singh (2020) and distinguishes Mohan Lal (2018), applying the test of prejudice and fairness on the facts. This decision is binding authority within the Calcutta jurisdiction and serves as persuasive authority elsewhere, particularly in prosecution under the Essential Commodities Act and similar statutes.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name |
CRA/15/1999 of Mongal Kumar Mondal vs. The State of W.B. CNR WBCHCA0050071999 |
| Date of Registration | 15-01-1999 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE PRASENJIT BISWAS |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Calcutta High Court jurisdiction; persuasive for other High Courts |
| Overrules / Affirms |
Applies Mukesh Singh v. State (2020) and distinguishes Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab (2018); sets aside trial court conviction |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law — Essential Commodities Act, Evidence Law, Criminal Procedure |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that a fair and impartial investigation, particularly where the complainant is also the investigating officer, requires corroboration by independent witnesses to prevent prejudice and secure a just outcome. In the absence of such corroboration, especially where independent witnesses are available but not examined without explanation, the prosecution version becomes unreliable. The mere fact that the informant is also the investigating officer does not by itself vitiate proceedings; however, where this is coupled with the absence of independent evidence or corroboration, courts must approach the case with caution, and the benefit of doubt must go to the accused. The judgment distinguished between the automatic nullification rule in Mohan Lal and the case-by-case “prejudice/fairness” test in Mukesh Singh, and applied the latter to the facts. The conviction was set aside due to procedural infirmities causing prejudice. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab (2018) 17 SCC 627; Mukesh Singh v. State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi) (2020) 10 SCC 120 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
Cited the requirement of objective, neutral, and fair investigation; emphasized that the purpose of criminal justice is not only that justice is done, but that it must appear to be done; referred to Apex Court’s guidance on complainant–investigator division; examined lack of supervision/oversight by higher officers as a procedural deficiency. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Appellant was accused of illegally transporting 16 bags of rice without a valid permit; complaint and seizure carried out by the same police officer; only two official witnesses examined by prosecution; no independent/local witness (Ajad Ali, alleged seizure witness, not examined); trial court convicted appellant; appellate challenge centered on procedural fairness and nature of investigation. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of Calcutta High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and the Supreme Court when considering similar prosecutions under the Essential Commodities Act or similar legislation |
| Overrules | Effectively distinguishes and limits the automatic rule in Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab (2018), applying instead the test in Mukesh Singh (2020) |
| Follows | Mukesh Singh v. State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi) (2020) 10 SCC 120 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that dual-role of complainant as investigating officer does not automatically vitiate a trial unless prejudice or unfairness is proved on facts.
- Explicitly holds that absence of independent/local witnesses, especially when available, is a serious procedural infirmity undermining reliability of seizure or recovery.
- Non-examination of a material independent witness (such as Ajad Ali in this case) will trigger adverse inference and can be fatal to prosecution.
- Highlights that testimonies solely by police/official witnesses must be approached with heightened caution and require corroboration for safe conviction.
- Lawyers may cite this judgment to challenge convictions where seizure or recovery is supported only by official, interested witnesses, and no independent witness is examined or available.
- Affirms that supervisory oversight by higher-ranked officers is essential in investigations where role duality and potential bias is present.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court began by underscoring the foundational requirement of objectivity and neutrality in investigation, especially in criminal cases involving penal statutes.
- Noted precedents: Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab (2018) held complainant and investigating officer should not be the same, sometimes necessitating acquittal, but Mukesh Singh v. State (2020) clarified that evidence of prejudice or unfairness is essential for vitiating effect.
- Applied the test in Mukesh Singh: considered whether, in the present record, the dual role caused prejudice to the accused.
- Found that only police witnesses were examined, no independent pedestrian or local witness was brought on record, and an alleged independent seizure witness (Ajad Ali) was not produced nor explained.
- Stated that this absence, in combination with lack of supervision by any higher officer, created serious doubts about transparency and impartiality.
- Concluded that the benefit of doubt must go to the accused where prosecution stands only on unsupported testimonies of interested police witnesses without independent corroboration.
- Set aside the conviction as not being based on substantive proof and allowing the appeal.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Investigation and prosecution suffered procedural infirmities as the complainant also acted as investigating officer.
- Lack of independent or local witnesses to seizure; only official (police) witnesses relied upon.
- Omission to examine material witness (Ajad Ali) who could corroborate prosecution version.
- No supervisory oversight by higher-ranked officials.
- Prolonged pendency of proceedings over thirty years inflicted mental, social, and financial suffering on the appellant.
- Prayed for benefit of Probation of Offenders Act if court were to sustain conviction.
Respondent
- Contended impugned judgment was well-reasoned and based on appreciation of evidence.
- Asserted that prosecution was supported by two official witnesses, whose testimonies were consistent and corroborated by documents.
- Seizure list and other evidence substantiated prosecution.
- Argued there is no substantive or procedural illegality warranting interference; conviction deserved to be affirmed.
Factual Background
The appellant was apprehended driving a lorry loaded with 16 bags of rice (8 quintals) in Islampur bazaar without producing any permit or supporting documents. The lorry and rice were seized by a police officer who also lodged the complaint and investigated the case. Only police/official witnesses were examined at trial; an alleged neutral witness, Ajad Ali, was not examined. The trial court convicted the appellant for offences under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act. Appeal was preferred contesting the integrity of the investigation and reliability of evidence.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955: Prosecuted for illegal possession and transport of rice without a permit, as prohibited under the West Bengal Rice and Paddy Licensing Control Order, 1967.
- The Court discussed procedural requirements for seizure and recoveries, partially drawing on criminal procedure rules concerning evidence, investigation, and corroboration.
- No statutory reading down or reading in applied, but the approach was to harmonize rules governing fair investigation, witness examination, and the mandatory separation of roles where possible.
- Section 437A CrPC (and s.483 of BNSS, 2023) referenced for post-acquittal bail bond formalities.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No separate dissenting or concurring opinions were recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- The Court mandated compliance with Section 437A CrPC (Section 483 of BNSS, 2023) requiring the appellant to furnish bail bonds with sureties for six months post-acquittal.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment follows the fairness/prejudice test as laid down in Mukesh Singh (2020), and declines to apply the automatic nullification rule in Mohan Lal (2018).