The Calcutta High Court held that a criminal conviction under the Essential Commodities Act cannot be sustained where the only evidence regarding the alleged short-delivery of diesel is based on measurement by an impermissible method, such as using a stick to gauge the quantity of diesel in a tank. The Court emphasised that convictions in matters involving alleged offences under the Essential Commodities Act, and related rules concerning the sale and distribution of petroleum products, must be founded on reliable, scientifically valid and legally permissible methods of measurement and evidence. The Division Bench observed that diesel is a liquid commodity whose quantity cannot be accurately or reliably determined by simplistic methods like striking or probing with a stick, and that in the absence of proper weighing or metering evidence, the prosecution’s case remains materially unproven.
The case arose from a prosecution instituted against a petrol pump dealer and others under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and relevant provisions of the Petroleum Rules, alleging that they had sold diesel in short measure to customers by under-dispensing fuel. The prosecution’s case was premised on complaints by customers, supported by measurements taken by law enforcement personnel who used improvised methods such as inserting a graduated stick into storage tanks to estimate the quantity of diesel remaining and infer short delivery. At trial, the District Magistrate and adjudicating authority convicted the accused and imposed penalties on the basis of these measurements and related findings. The accused challenged the conviction before the High Court, arguing that the evidence was inherently unreliable and legally unsound.
On appeal, the Calcutta High Court critically examined the evidentiary basis of the conviction, particularly focusing on the methodology used to determine the alleged short-delivery. The Court noted that the Essential Commodities Act and the Petroleum Rules contemplate the use of scientifically accepted methods of quantification, such as calibrated meters, official weighbridges or other devices recognised for measurement accuracy in the trade and industry. The Court observed that the use of rudimentary techniques like measuring with a stick lacks scientific validity, precision and legal acceptability, and cannot form the sole basis for convicting an accused in a criminal prosecution. It held that such measurement cannot be equated with legally recognised standards of proof and that reliance on it alone undermines the fundamental requirement that the prosecution prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
The High Court further noted that petroleum products like diesel are generally dispensed through calibrated meters and measurement at retail outlets is governed by specific regulatory standards. These standards are designed to ensure transparency, accuracy and consumer protection, and any alleged short-delivery must therefore be established by evidence that conforms to those standards. In the present case, the absence of documentary evidence showing meter readings, calibration certificates, or any scientific method of measurement meant that the prosecution’s case was based on conjecture rather than concrete proof. The Court held that convicting the accused solely on the basis of measurements made with a stick was impermissible, as such evidence was inadmissible and could not be elevated to the level of proof required for criminal conviction.
Accordingly, the Calcutta High Court set aside the conviction and acquittal was ordered in favour of the accused. In doing so, the Court emphasised that adherence to proper methods of evidence collection and measurement is essential in prosecutions involving alleged market manipulation, short-delivery or violations of statutory quality and quantity standards. The decision underscores that courts must insist on scientifically valid evidence when adjudicating cases under the Essential Commodities Act or related regulatory frameworks, and that convictions cannot be sustained on the basis of unreliable or legally deficient measurement techniques.
The High Court’s ruling reiterates the principle that criminal liability must be grounded in proof beyond reasonable doubt, and that the mode of gathering and presenting evidence must meet the standards of reliability and legal admissibility. By quashing the conviction, the Court highlighted the importance of strict adherence to established rules of evidence and scientific measurement, particularly in cases involving technical aspects of trade and commerce, where improper methods can lead to miscarriages of justice. The judgment serves as a caution against reliance on ad-hoc or unscientific techniques in criminal prosecutions interpreting technical regulatory provisions.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.