High CourtsSingle Bench

Ramanathan vs State

Madras High Court · Decided on 12 June 2006 · Citation: (2006) 2 LW(Cri) 567

HON’BLE JUDGES
S. Ashok Kumar, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Essential Commodities Act, 1955 — Section 7(1) · Tamil Nadu Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1982 — Section 14(1)
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Appeal No. 483 of 1999
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

32 paragraphs · 668 words

S. Ashok Kumar, J.—The appellant was A-1 in S.T.C.No:18 of 1997 on the file of the Presiding Officer for Special Court for Essential

Commodities/N.D.P.S Act cases at Coimbatore. This Appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the conviction imposed on him under

Clauses 6(2)(3) and (4) and 14(1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order 1982,

punishable u/s 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 to undergo simple imprisonment for for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.

1500/=, in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment.

2.

The brief facts which led to the conviction of the appellant are as follows:-

The appellant was the Salesman in the Fair Price Shop No. 3, at Pongaliyur, run by the Pollachi Cooperative Wholesale Stores, Pollachi, in which

the third accused was the authorised dealer. On 7.2.1997, at 5.30 p.m., A-1, the appellant herein has sold 10 kilograms of PDS wheat to one

Smt. Radha for Rs. 45/= without any bill and that there was a shortage of stock to the tune of 25 kilograms of raw rice found missing during the

inspection conducted by the sub Collector, Pollachi. Since the appellant, A.1 sold 6 bags of PDS rice to the 2nd accused and 10 kgs of wheat at

Rs. 45/= without any bill to one Radha, A.2 and the Circle Deputy Registrar was the Authorised dealer, the respondent filed charge sheet against

them for the violation of Clauses 6(2)(3) and (4) and 14(1) (c) of Tamil Nadu Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card

System) Order 1982 punishable u/s 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1985.

3.

On behalf of the prosecution P.Ws 1 to 17 were examined. No witness was examined on behalf of the accused. The trial court has come to the

conclusion that the offences against the appellant-A.1 has been proved and has been found guilty for offences u/s 14(1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu

Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order 1982, punishable u/s 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act and

imposed punishment mentioned supra. The trial court acquitted A.2 and A.3 as the charges have not been proved. Aggrieved over the said

judgment and conviction, this appeal has been filed by A.1.

4.

Mr.K.V.Sridharan, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the appeal can be disposed of on a simple question of law

without going deep into the evidence adduced in the trial. Even according to the learned Counsel for the appellant assuming that the entire evidence

adduced on behalf of the prosecution is taken as true, even then, the punishment under Clause 14(1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Scheduled

Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order 1982 is not sustainable in law. Clause 14(1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Scheduled

Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order 1982 is as follows:-

14.

Further condition to be observed by the authorised retail shops--(1) Every authorised dealer shall--

(c) always maintain adequate stocks of the schedule commodities.

5.

By the above clause only an authorised dealer can be prosecuted. The Section adds that ""every authorised dealer shall"". But in this case A.3

who was the authorised dealer was acquitted. On the other hand the salesman, the appellant herein was convicted for this offence. Acquitting the

authorised dealer for a specific offence and convicting the Salesman under Clause 14(1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Scheduled Commodities (Regulation

of Distribution by Card System) Order 1982 is not sustainable in law. The appellant has been acquitted for the contravention of Clause 6(2)(3)

and (4) of the said Order. But his conviction under Clause 14(1) of the said Order is not sustainable, because Clause 14(1) of the said Order only

deals with a ""Authorised Dealer"" and not with a ""Salesman"". For this simple reason, this Criminal Appeal deserves to be allowed and the same is

allowed accordingly. The fine amount, if any, paid already shall be refunded to the appellant and also his bail bond shall stand cancelled.