The Calcutta High Court held that a conviction under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act cannot be sustained if the seizure list—the foundation of prosecution—is not shown to comply with legal requirements. The judgment sets a binding precedent, emphasizing strict evidentiary standards for seizure procedures in E.C. Act cases and nullifying convictions resting on deficient seizure documentation.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRA/444/1990 of IMTIYAZ AHMED@ IMTIYAZ AHMED KHAN Vs THE STATE |
| CNR | WBCHCA0084481990 |
| Date of Registration | 30-10-1990 |
| Decision Date | 10-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS) |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Precedent Value | Binding within jurisdiction; clarifies requirements for seizure evidence under E.C. Act |
| Type of Law | Criminal law (Essential Commodities Act, 1955) |
| Questions of Law | Whether conviction under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the E.C. Act can be sustained when the seizure list is not made in accordance with legal requirements and its legality is not considered in the judgment |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that a conviction under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 cannot be sustained when the prosecution’s foundation—the seizure list—is not shown to be prepared in compliance with the relevant provisions. The learned Trial Court erred by convicting the appellant without considering the legality and evidentiary value of the seizure list. The failure to address or properly assess the legality of the seizure list vitiates the conviction. This non-consideration constitutes a gross procedural violation and renders the conviction unsustainable in law. Proper judicial scrutiny of seizure documents is mandatory for upholding convictions under the E.C. Act. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
On 13th September 1988, police intercepted a mini truck with 39 bags of rice on National Highway-6. The accused and others failed to produce documents for the rice. The rice and supporting vehicle documents were seized, and FIR was registered under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the E.C. Act. The accused pleaded not guilty. At trial, the prosecution relied on a seizure list. The Trial Court convicted the accused. In appeal, it was argued that the seizure list was not in compliance with law and was not considered by the Trial Court. The High Court found this omission fatal to the conviction. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, particularly where seizure procedure under the E.C. Act is in dispute |
| Overrules | The conviction and order of the Trial Court arising out of Jhargram P.S. Case No.13 dated 13.09.1988 |
| Follows | Strict evidentiary and procedural standards imposed for seizure documentation in criminal prosecution under E.C. Act |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that seizure lists serve as foundational evidence in prosecutions under the E.C. Act.
- Conviction is not sustainable if the legality and procedural compliance of the seizure list is not established and judicially scrutinized.
- Failure of the Trial Court to examine or mention the legality of the seizure list constitutes a gross procedural violation.
- Establishes that courts must make an explicit finding on the compliance and evidentiary value of seizure lists in E.C. Act prosecutions.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court thoroughly assessed the trial record and observed that the sole foundation of the prosecution—the seizure list—had not been prepared in compliance with the relevant legal provisions.
- The Trial Court failed to consider or comment on the legality and admissibility of the seizure list, which was critical and fatal to the prosecution’s case.
- The appellate court held that without scrupulous compliance with legal requirements for seizure and proper judicial consideration of the seizure’s legality, a conviction under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act cannot be sustained.
- Consequently, the failure to record any judicial analysis of the seizure process in the impugned judgment rendered the conviction unsafe in law.
- The impugned conviction was set aside for these reasons.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Contended that the seizure list, the foundation of the prosecution, was not prepared in accordance with law and that this serious irregularity was not considered by the Trial Court.
- Argued that the lower court’s conviction was erroneous due to non-consideration of the legality of the seizure documentation.
- Asserted that the rice was carried either for personal consumption or business (contention rejected by Trial Court).
Respondent (State)
- Defended the conviction but did not specifically counter the arguments regarding the legality of the seizure list or its procedural deficiencies in the available text.
Factual Background
On September 13, 1988, police intercepted a mini truck near Lodhasuli on National Highway-6, carrying 39 bags of rice. The occupants could not provide documentation for the rice when requested and a seizure list was prepared. An FIR (Jhargram P.S. Case No.13) was registered against the accused under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act. Six witnesses were examined at the trial. The Trial Court convicted the accused and others based largely on the seizure. On appeal, the conviction was challenged on the ground that the seizure list was not properly prepared or considered by the Trial Court.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955: Provides for penalties for contravention of orders made under the Act.
- The judgment highlights the statutory requirement that seizure lists, which form the evidentiary basis for conviction under this section, must comply with relevant legal provisions.
- The court underscored that judicial scrutiny of the seizure list’s legality is mandatory before conviction.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Reinforces the necessity of proper judicial scrutiny and procedural compliance regarding seizure lists in prosecutions under the Essential Commodities Act.