The Calcutta High Court recently observed that the non-examination of independent witnesses, when they are admittedly present, casts doubt on the fairness and transparency of the investigation.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Prasenjit Biswas made these observations while hearing an appeal against a conviction delivered by a Special EC Court. The appellant had been convicted under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and sentenced to six months’ simple imprisonment along with a fine of ₹500.
The case arose after the Petitioner was allegedly found transporting sixty bags of rice. His vehicle was intercepted, and he reportedly produced photocopies of a licence, an authorisation letter, and a cash memo to justify the transportation. The prosecution alleged that these documents were later found to be fictitious, leading to the registration of the case.
The High Court found material contradictions in the prosecution evidence. While the written complaint stated that the appellant produced documents later found to be false, P.W.1 claimed in court that no documents were produced at all, which was labelled as an irreconcilable inconsistency going to the heart of the case. Likewise, P.W.2 also admitted that although the cash memo book was allegedly issued only up to serial numbers 715–716, the book itself was never produced before the Court, a significant omission since it was essential to verify the witness’s claim. Taking serious exception to these discrepancies, the Court held:
“24. The absence of the primary documentary evidence, coupled with the unexplained failure to produce the corresponding cash memo book, severely undermines the prosecution’s narrative. These omissions are not minor or technical in nature; rather, they go to the root of the prosecution’s attempt to establish that the documents relied upon by the accused were forged or invalid. When the very documents claimed to be incriminating are not produced before the Court, the reliability and truthfulness of the prosecution version stand substantially shaken.”
The High Court further noted that key witnesses were not examined, including the person who lodged the FIR. The Court observed that the prosecution’s failure to examine the very person who filed the FIR deprived it of the ability to assess the accuracy and authenticity of its contents.
The Court also highlighted the absence of any independent witness to corroborate the alleged seizure. Apart from two police witnesses, no neutral witness was cited or produced, despite evidence showing that several persons were present when the vehicle carrying 60 bags of rice was intercepted. The Court held:
“31… the non-examination of independent witnesses, when they are admittedly present and available does cast a shadow of doubt upon the fairness and transparency of the investigation. The prosecution should, wherever possible, secure the testimony of independent witnesses to dispel any apprehension of fabricated or exaggerated evidence.”
In light of these findings, the High Court set aside the conviction and allowed the criminal appeal.
Cause Title: In the matter of Dilip Kumar Mondal
Case Number: CRA 284 of 1999
Appearance: Dr. Achin Jana, Mr. Prosenjit Ghosh, Mr. Bhaskar Dalui and Ms. Chetna Rusagi appeared for the Petitioner. Mr. Avishek Sinha and Ms. Jonaki Saha appeared for the State.