P. Kandasamy vs State

S. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.—The appellant is the sole accused in S.T.C.No. 10 of 1997 on the file of the Special Court for E.C./NDPS

Act Cases, Coimbatore. This appeal is filed against the conviction and sentence of three months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.

1,000/-, in default to undergo a further period of one month simple imprisonment for the offence u/s 7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955

for the violation of the Order passed under Clause 10(a) of Tamil Nadu Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System)

Order, 1982, as per judgment dated 21.7.1998.

The brief facts that led to the filing of this appeal are as follows:-

(a) On 12.7.1996, P.W.2, Revenue Divisional Officer, along with P.W.3 Divisional Excise Officer and the Prohibition Party conducted a

prohibition raid at Chettikuttai Punnam village and made search of the Tea Stall as well as the house of the appellant (hereinafter referred to as ""the

accused"") and they were not able to get any contraband either in the shop or in the house of the accused. Then, they searched the firewood and

wood powder bags kept by the side of the house of the accused. In the search headed by P.W.2, they found 16 ration cards(M.O.1 series) in the

midst of the firewood and wood powder bags. As the accused could not give reply with regard to 16 ration cards, they were forwarded to the

District Collector, Erode along with a report Ex.P-1 by P.W.2. Ex.P-1 was endorsed to the District Supply Officer (P.W.1) for necessary action

in respect of the illegal possession of 16 ration cards (M.O.1) series and P.W.1 submitted the complaint Ex.P-2 to the Civil Supplies C.I.D. along

with 16 ration cards.

(b) P.W.12, Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies C.I.D. on receipt of the complaint Ex.P-2, registered the case in Crime No. 112 of 1996 for the

contravention of the provisions under Clause 10(a) of the Tamil Nadu Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System)

Order, 1982 punishable u/s 7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and prepared printed F.I.R. Ex.P-4 and forwarded the same to the

Court. P.W.12 examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. He obtained certificate Ex.P-3 from P.W.11, Village Administrative

Officer, that all the ration cards are genuine and belonged to different persons except the card in the name of the accused. After completing the

investigation, P.W.12 filed charge-sheet in respect of 15 ration cards.

To prove the case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 12 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-4, besides M.O.1 series.

When the accused was questioned u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the basis of the incriminating materials made available against

him by the respondent, he denied the offence and stated that he has not committed any offence.

The trial Court, on consideration of such evidence, found the accused guilty and sentenced as set out above, which is challenged in this appeal.

Heard Mr. P.V.S.Giridhar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused and Mr. A.N.Thambidurai, learned Government Advocate

(Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent/State.

The learned counsel for the appellant/accused mainly submitted that the ration cards M.O.1 series have not been seized either from the house or

shop of the accused and they were seized in the midst of the firewood and wood powder bags. Then by referring the proviso to Section 13(1)(e)

of the Tamil Nadu Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1982 argued that the proviso to Section 13(1)(e)

of the said Order has not been followed and P.Ws.1 to 3, who made search of the shop and the house of the accused, have not given receipt in

respect of the seizure of M.O.1 series ration cards after effecting the seizure. The learned counsel also argued that M.O.1 series ration cards have

not been seized under mahazar. Learned counsel also submitted that P.Ws.4 to 10, who have been examined to speak about M.O.1 series ration

cards as belonging to them, have not supported the case of the prosecution and P.Ws.4 to 6 turned hostile and even P.Ws.7 to 9 have only stated

in their evidence that they have not given their ration cards to the accused. It is further submitted that P.W.10, Salesman of the ration shop also

turned hostile and even in his chief examination, P.W.10 has stated that the accused used to purchase ration articles only for his ration card and not

for any other ration cards. Further, the learned counsel also argued that there have been delay in preferring the complaint.

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) submits that inasmuch as M.O.1 series ration cards have been seized in the midst of

firewood and wood powder bags, during the search made by P.Ws.1 to 3, the trial Court has found the accused guilty.

As argued by the learned counsel for the accused, P.Ws.1 to 3 have not followed the procedure laid down in the proviso to Section 13(1)(e) of

the Said Order in not giving receipt in respect of the seizure of M.O.1 series ration cards, which according to the prosecution, were seized by

P.Ws.1 to 3. It is not in evidence that M.O.1 series ration cards were seized under seizure mahazure. P.Ws.3 to 6, ration card holders in respect

of M.O.1 series, have turned hostile and P.Ws.7 to 9 also not supported the case of the prosecution in their evidence. They have not stated that

they have given the ration cards to the accused for the purpose of obtaining the essential commodities from the ration shop. Even P.W.10, the

salesman in the ration shop has stated that the accused used to get the essential commodities only in respect of his ration card and not in respect of

other ration cards.

Further, there have been delay in preferring the complaint Ex.P-2. P.W.2 has sent his report Ex.P-1 on 12.7.1996 to P.W.1, the District

Supply Officer. On that basis, P.W.1 gave the complaint Ex.P.-2 dated 23.7.1996 to the respondent, who registered a case in Crime No. 112 of

1996 only on 26.7.1996 and as such, there have been delay in preferring the complaint and registering the same. The trial Court has not

considered all these aspects in proper perspective manner and as such, the conviction and sentence have to be set aside.

In the result, in view of the discussions made above, the appeal is allowed. The judgment dated 21.7.1998 made in S.T.C.No. 10 OF 1997

on the file of the Special Court for EC/NDPS Act Cases, Coimbatore, convicting the appellant/accused is set aside and the appellant/accused is

acquitted from the charges levelled against him. The bail bond executed by the appellant/accused shall stand cancelled. The fine amount, paid by

the appellant/accused, is ordered to be refunded.