State, by Public Prosecutor vs Co-operative Societies, Muluvi and 2 others

Rengasamy, J.—This appeal by the State is against the acquittal of the respondents herein by the Special Judge, under the Essential

Commodities Act, Salem in S.T.C. No. 24 of 1985 finding that the respondents are not guilty of the offences u/s 6(3) read with Section 7(l)(a)(ii)

and 3(1) (2) read with Section 7(l)(a) of Tamil Nadu Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of distribution by Card System) Order 1982 Essential

Commodities Act.

The prosecution case is that the first respondent accused is a multipurpose co-operative society in Muluvi Village in Yercaud in which the

second respondent accused was the Salesman prior to 3.3.83 and the third respondent was a Salesman from 4.3.83 to 5.8.83, When the Special

Tahsildar of Flying Squad P.W. 11 inspected this multi- purpose co-operative society, he found the sale of the commodities to persons who were

not card holders and whose cards were not registered in this society and that the stocks and prices were not exhibited in the society on the date of

the inspection.

Prosecution examined the card holders P.Ws.1 to 9, who have deposed that they purchased only certain commodities and sometimes they were

not supplied with full quantity on their demand. P.W. 10, the Special Deputy Tahsildar has spoken that the 7 card numbers found in the bill book

maintained by the first accused society, were not registered with this society, but in some other society. P.W. 11, the Special Tahsildar of Flying

Squad, has spoken that the inspection was conducted by him on 4.8.83 and 5.8.83 and the irregularities were found by him. P.W. 12 is the

Accountant of the society and P.W. 13 is the Investigating Officer.

The learned Special Judge, who tried this case, has acquitted the respondents herein on the ground that the prosecution has not established the

charges against the accused/respondents.

Even though notices have been served on the respondents 1 and 2, they have not entered appearance and the third respondent alone is

represented by his counsel.

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) contends that the Court below has not properly applied its mind with reference to the

requirements of the Sections of the Essential Commodities Act and the documentary evidence produced before the lower Court was not properly

appreciated and the acquittal of the respondent is contrary to law. The Learned Counsel for the third respondent argues that the Court below has

taken the view that as the persons alleged to have purchased the goods in this Society without the ration cards, have not been examined, the sale of

the commodities by the respondents 1 and 2 to the non-card holders or to those who have not registered the card in this society, is not proved and

therefore there is no error in the findings, of the Court, But the documents and the evidence of P.W. 10 and P.W. 11 clearly establish that the

second respondent accused had sold the commodities to the persons, whose cards were not registered with this society. He refers to the evidence

of P.W. 10, whose report is Ex. P-1. P.W. 10 is the Deputy Special Tahsildar, who has verified the numbers of the cards furnished by P.W. 11.

P.W. 11 has given the list of seven cards found entered in the bill books for the supply of the commodities. P.W. 10, after referring to the registers

maintained by the society, has found that the family card numbers 110990, 110271, 110876, 110877, 110652, 110665 and 110846 were not

registered with the first respondent co-operative society in Muluvi Village, and in Ex. P-1. his report, he has given the details of the societies in

which these cards were registered. It is pertinent to mention that when P.W. 10 was in box, no question'' was put to him with reference to the

correctness of the statement and his report Ex. P-1. Therefore, it has to be accepted that the- evidence of P.W. 10 is true and nothing but true,

which has to be accepted without any hesitation. From the evidence of P.W. 10 and his report Ex. P-1, the seven cards mentioned above were

not registered with the first respondent society, but with the some other societies and the names of these societies also are given in Ex. P-1 report.

u/s 6(3) of Tamil Nadu Scheduled Commodities Order 1982, no person shall obtain any scheduled commodities on family cards unless he

registers himself with an authorised dealer and the authorised dealer shall not supply the scheduled commodities against any family card not

registered with him or to non-card holders. Now, on a perusal of the M.O.2 bill book, we are able to see that for these seven cards, kerosene,

maida and rava had been supplied by the second respondent, who was the salesman at that time. Ex. P-4 Annexure I is'' a report in detail

prepared by P.W. I. The particulars given in Ex. P-4, Annexure I tallies with the bill numbers and the cards numbers given in M.O.2 bill book.

Therefore, the bill book M.O.2, the report Ex. P-4 Annexure I and Ex. P-1 establish the fact that the second respondent salesman had sold the

commodities to certain card holders who had not registered their card with the first respondent society. Therefore, when the document prepared

by the second respondent himself proves the contravention of the provisions, there is no need for examining the purchasers of the commodities,

who owned the cards mentioned above. Some of the card holders examined before the Court below have stated that they were not supplied with

all the commodities and only a very few items were given. But the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) argued that entries have been

made in the cards of these witnesses that all the commodities were supplied and that also would prove that without supplying the commodities to

these card holders, they were supplied to some third parties, who must be non-card holders. Some times these witnesses may not be accurate in

their memory that too after some years, as to what were the commodities they purchased. Therefore, for the reason that these witnesses have

stated that the; entire commodities were not supplied to them, we cannot take it that some of the commodities were sold to non-card holders.

However, the description of the numbers of the cards in M.O.2 bill book, the report Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-4 Annexure I are sufficient to conclude

that the second respondent Salesman has sold the commodities to the card-holders, whose cards were not registered with this society. Therefore,

certainly this would fall u/s 6(3) of the Scheduled Commodities Order 1982 punishable u/s 7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act.

u/s 10 of the said Act, if the person contravening the order is a company, the Company also is liable to be punished. Therefore, in this case, as

the second respondent was the Salesman, who made the entries in M.O.2 bill book and the first respondent is the Company, both of them are

liable to be punished u/s 7(l)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act.

Then coming to the third respondent/third accused, he is charged only for the offence u/s 3(1)(2) of the Essential Commodities Act for the failure

to display the stocks and prices. On the date of the inspection, that is on 4.8.83, he was the salesman in the leave vacancy and u/s 3 of Tamil Nadu

Essential Commodities (Display of Stock and Prices Maintenance of Accounts) Order 1977, every dealer shall display conspicuously in the place

of his business, the stocks of the essential commodity held by him and he shall also display a list of all prices showing the cost price and sale price

of such essential commodity. It is not the case of the third respondent that he exhibited the stock list and the price list at the time of the inspection.

No cross examination was made to P.W. 11 suggesting that the list was exhibited. On the other hand, it appears to have been contended before

the Special Judge that the explanation u/s 12 of the said Act which gives exemption to the establishments of the Food Corporation of India run

under the Food Corporation Act of 1964 and the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies corporation is appointed to the first respondent society (sic). The

learned Special Judge has observed that there is nothing in this Essential Commodities (Display of Stock and Prices Maintenance of Accounts)

Order 1977 to the effect that it is enforceable against the cooperative society also and the definition of the word ''dealer'' does not include

specifically the co-operative society and therefore Section 3 is not enforceable against the co-operative society. I feel that the approach of the

learned Special Judge is not correct: When Section 12 specifically exempts only the two categories of establishments, one run by the Food

Corporation of India and the other by the Civil Supplies Corporation, it goes without saying that all other establishments run by any other body, are

not exempted and they come within the purview of the Act. u/s 2(8) of the Essential Commodities Order, a dealer is defined as a person engaged

in the business of purchase, movements, sale, supply, distribution or storage of essential commodities and certain categories of those persons like

an importer, a wholesaler, a retailer etc. also are given, for example. A person engaged in the business of purchase, sale and distribution of the

essential commodities is a dealer as per the definition and therefore even a society like the first respondent herein, which is engaged in the sale and

distribution of essential commodities clearly falls within the definition ''dealer,'' and I am unable to understand how the learned Special Judge

entertained the doubt as to the appropriately in this word ''dealer'' is to co-operative society. Undoubtedly it applies and as there is no exemption

u/s 12, the first respondent society cannot escape from the operation of this order. Therefore, the learned Special Judge is not right in concluding

that the said Act does not cover the first respondent. As I have found above that the first respondent is not exempted, it follows that the non-

exhibition of the stock list and price list attracts the punishment u/s 7(l)(a)(ii) of the Act.

Therefore, both the first respondent and the third respondent are liable to be punished u/s 7 of the Act. u/s 7(l)(a)(ii) of the Act, the minimum

punishment prescribed is three months imprisonment. Therefore, I feel that the sentence of three months imprisonment on the respondents 2 and 3

is sufficient to meet the ends of the justice. As the first respondent is the society, a fine of Rs.250/- for each of the offences will be the adequate

punishment.

However, the learned Government Advocate represents that even though the respondents 2 and 3 stand convicted, under G.O.Ms.No.180

dated 28.1.89, the sentences to the respondents 2 and 3 stand remitted even though the conviction is awarded today, it dates back to the date of

the judgment of the Special Judge, which is d. 2.2.1987. As it is conceded by the learned Government Advocate that the respondent 2 and 3 are

entitled to the benefits of the above said G.O, they cannot be arrested or detained.

In the result, setting aside the order of acquittal of the learned Special Judge, the respondents 1 and 2 are convicted and sentenced u/s 6(3)

read with Section 7(l)(a)(ii) of the Act to pay a fine of Rs.250/- by the first respondent, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months by the

second respondent, u/s 3 read with Section 7(l)(a)(ii) to pay a fine of Rs.250/- by the first respondent and to undergo rigorous imprisonment by

the respondent for three months. However, in view of the above mentioned G.O, the respondents need not be arrested.