State of Kerala vs Sankara Panicker Harihara Panicker

T.C. Raghavan, J.—In a prosecution under clauses 4 and 5 of the Kerala Dry Cells for Torches (Declaration of Stocks and Maintenance of Accounts) Order, 1966 the respondent was acquitted; and the State has filed the appeal. I have held in Udayasi, Metro Cycle Importing Co. v. State of Kerala (1969 KLT 69) that clause 3 and 4 of the said Order were beyond the powers delegated by the Central Government to the State Government and hence bad. I have also held in another case that the same conclusion applied to clauses 3 and 4 of the Kerala Baby Food (Declaration of Stocks and Maintenance of Accounts) Order of 1966, because the delegation of powers by the Central Government in that case was also in similar terms. The position is the same regarding the Dry Cells Order for the same reason. Therefore, no charge could have been filed against the respondent under clauses 3 and 4 of the Dry Cells Order.

The further question is whether the conclusion of the lower court is correct regarding the offence under clause 5 of the said Order. Clause 5 provides for the maintenance of accounts by a dealer in Dry Cells; and in this case the prosecution has not established beyond doubt that the respondent did not maintain accounts. Therefore, the acquittal of the respondent by the lower court is correct. The appeal is dismissed in limine.