Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 701 (CAL)

MD. Eanus Ali v. State of West Bengal

2015-08-20

JOYMALYA BAGCHI

body2015
JUDGMENT : Joymalya Bagchi, J. Proceeding in G.R. Case No. 4729 of 2011 pending before the learned First Special Court at Berhampore, Murshidabad, arising out of Jalangi Police Station Case No. 782 of 2011 dated 10th September, 2011 under Section 379/411/409/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 has been assailed. 2. The impugned criminal proceeding was initiated on the basis of a written complaint lodged by B.D.O., Jalangi, Murshidabad alleging that on 10th September, 2011 the defacto-complainant along with others saw a matador bearing WB 57 A 8879 loaded with approx. 30 bags rice, 15 quintals of wheat standing in front of M.R. godown shop of the petitioner. The petitioner was unable to give satisfactory answer as to the said rice. The sample of the rice in the vehicle and that in the said godown were of similar quality. Accordingly, it was suspected that the rice from the godown was being transferred clandestinely to another place for selling the same in open market and depriving the ration card holders. In conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed in the instant case. 3. Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is nothing on record to show that the rice in the matador was entrusted to the petitioner in course of his business as a M.R. dealer. He further submits that no officer of the food and supplies department was examined to establish that the petitioner was conducting his business in violation of the terms of his licence. He, accordingly, prays for quashing of the proceeding. 4. Mr. Ghosh, learned counsel for the State submits that the rice found in the matador was similar in quality with the rice entrusted to the petitioner as a dealer. This gives rise to an inference that the rice from the godown of the petitioner was clandestinely moved into the matador for disposal. It was in the near proximity of the godown of the petitioner and the matador van carrying the seized rice which gave reason to believe that the rice had been removed from the godown for clandestine business. 5. I have considered the submissions of the parties. It is true that the investigating agency had found a matador containing approx. 30 bags of rice and 15 quintals of wheat near the shop of the petitioner. 5. I have considered the submissions of the parties. It is true that the investigating agency had found a matador containing approx. 30 bags of rice and 15 quintals of wheat near the shop of the petitioner. However, having considered the F.I.R. including the statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure I find there is no eye witness who had seen the said bags of rice being removed from the shop of the petitioner into the matador. Such inference has been drawn to the Investigating agency on the ground that the rice found in the matador van and that stored in the shop of the petitioner were of similar quality. It is nobody's case that rice stored in the M.R. shop of the petitioner is not otherwise available in the open market. 6. In the absence of any material on record to establish that the rice seized from the matador van had been entrusted to the petitioner, in connection with his business as M.R. dealer and stored in his godown, sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioner for commission of the alleged offences punishable under Section 379/411/409/34, I.P.C. is not made out. Vague suspicion based on mere surmises and conjectures cannot be the foundation of continuation of a criminal proceeding and such proceeding is liable to be quashed as an abuse of the process of Court in the interest of justice. 7. Accordingly, proceeding in G.R. Case No. 4729 of 2011 pending before the learned First Special Court at Berhampore, Murshidabad, arising out of Jalangi Police Station Case No. 782 of 2011 dated 10th September, 2011 under Section 379/411/409/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is quashed. 8. The petitioner is discharged from his bail bond, if any. Case diary be returned. 9. The revision petition is allowed.