LAWS(KER)-1990-1-10

ANNAMMA CHERIAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

Decided On January 23, 1990
ANNAMMA CHERIAN Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KERALA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was tried by the Special Judge for trial of offences under the Essential Commodities Act, Trichur and was found guilty of offence punishable under S.7(1)(a)(ii) of E.C. Act read with S.3(2)(c)(d) of the said Act and Cls.29 and 50 of the Kerala Rationing Order 1966. The appellant appeals against the conviction and sentence. The appellant was tried along with two other persons. Originally the police filed final report against accused 1 and 2. The gist of allegation against these two accused was that the 1st accused unlawfully removed 611 Kgs. of rice from a ration shop and sold this ration rice to the

(2.) The prosecution alleged that accused 1 and 2 committed offences punishable under Cls.5 and 5A of the Kerala Rationing Order and S.7(1)(a)(ii) of the E.C. Act read with S.3(2)(c)(d) of the said Act. Trial commenced against accused 1 and 2 and 6 witnesses were examined on the side of the prosecution. At this stage, the Public Prosecutor filed a petition under S.319 of the Cr. P.C. and prayed that from the evidence, it appeared, that the appellant herein committed offence and she also should be impleaded as an accused. The petition was allowed and the appellant here in was impleaded as the 3rd accused. Fresh charge was framed against the appellant for the offences punishable under Cls.5, 5A, 29 and 44 of the Kerala Rationing Order, 1966 and S.7(1)(a)(ii) read with S.3(2)(c)(d) of the E.C. Act. The learned Special Judge by his judgement dated 14-1-87 acquitted accused 1 and 2 and convicted the 3rd accused-appellant for the offences punishable under Cls.29 and 50 of the Kerala Rationing Order 1966 and S.7(1)(a)(ii) of the E.C. Act read with S.3(2)(c)(d) of the said Act. The conviction and sentence was challenged by the appellant herein in Crl. Appeal No. 41 of 1987. The appellant alleged that the procedure adopted for trial was illegal as the evidence of 6 witnesses were recorded in her absence. This Court set aside the conviction and sentence and ordered a fresh trial. Thereafter, 7 witnesses were examined including the witnesses already examined by the trial Court. The appellant was given opportunity to cross-examine these witnesses and by judgement dated 30-1-89 the Special Judge found the appellant guilty of offences punishable under Cls.29 and 50 of the Kerala Rationing Order read with the provisions of the E.C. Act. This conviction and sentence is challenged by the appellant.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant Shri T.V. Prabhakaran contends that the conviction and sentence is not sustainable since the Special Judge violated the provisions of S.319, Cr. P.C. It is contended that the Special Judge was not justified in taking cognizance of additional offences when the appellant was impleaded as an additional accused invoking Section 319 of the Code. The short question that arises for consideration whether the Special Judge was justified in taking cognizance of fresh offences in addition to the offences already taken cognizance by the Special Judge against accused 1 and 2.