R. Kalyamoorthy vs State of Tamil Nadu

Maheswaran, J.—This appeal preferred against the judgment in S.T.C. 29 of 1984 on the file of the Special Court for Essential Commodities Act cases. Thanjavur, convicting the accused for violation of Cl. 16(1) of the Tamil Nadu Paddy and Rice (Regulation of Trade) Order 1974, read with S. 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for three months and to a fine of Rs. 1000.

On 14 2.1984, at about 5 p.m. the Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies C.I.D., examined as P.W. 4 inspected the rice mill of R. Kaliamoorthy the accused at No. 2D, South Vanigar Street, Orathanadu, which is run under the name and style of M.S.R. Sons. There were 83 bags of paddy of I.R. 20 variety. The gravamen of the charge is that he has not maintained A, B, C, D and J registers and even the D Register has been written only upto 9.2.1984, and as such ha has violated condition No. 11 of the Licence and thus violated C1.16(1) of the Tamil Nadu Paddy and Rico (Regulation of Trade) Order 1974 and therefore is punishable under S. 7(1)(a) (ii) of the Essential commodities Act.

The defence was that the accused was a dealer in paddy and not a licence holder for the rice mill and that the paddy was just harvested, and kept in his kalam. The learned Special Judge found that there was a violation of Cl.16(1) of the Tamil Nadu Paddy and Rice (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1974 and convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above.

In the first instance, I mast point out that there is absolutely no evidence as to what, A, B, C, D, and J Registers are. None of the witnesses examined by the prosecution say as to what those A, B, C, D and J registers are. In the absence of such evidence, one cannot find that the petitioner has not maintained the registers.

One other contention which goes to the root of the matter which has not been expressly taken in the memorandum of grounds of appeal and which is now argued is that sanction for prosecution not been properly given. This contention appears to be well-founded, because I find that from the records that sanction has been accorded only by the District Revenue Officer. Ex. P2 is the sanction order. Ex. P2 shows that the District Revenue Officer has sanctioned the prosecution in exercise of the powers conferred on him under CI.24 of the Tamil Nadu Paddy and Rice (Regulation of Trade) Order 1974. But a reference to Cl.24 of the Tamil Nadu Paddy and Rice (Regulation of Trade) Order 1974, shows that previous sanction nction of the Collector of the District concerned or the Joint Commissioner of Civil Supplies in the city of Madras and the belt area comprising of Saidapet taluk and Avadi township in Sriperumbudur Taluk of Chingleput District has to be obtained. The District Revenue Officer is therefore not a competent authority to sanction prosecution. Only the Collector of the District is competent to sanction the prosecution. The sanction is therefore bad. On that view, the prosecution is also bad. The conviction and the sentence are set aside and the appeal is allowed. Fine if any paid will be refunded.