RANGASWAMI CHETTIAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two persons, a father and son, were charged before the Special First Class Magistrate of Ernakulam under S.7(2) (a) of Act XXIV of 1946 amended up to August 1950, read with S.17 (4) of the same Act, read with clauses 6 (2) and 12 (2) of the Sugar and Gur Control Order. 1950 and S.3 of the Cochin Essential Articles Control and Requisitioning Power Act VIII of 1122, clause 3 of the Sugar Control Order, 1125 and Government Notification No. C. L.3-5077/49/8. D. continued to be in force by the United State of Travancore Cochin Administration and Application of Laws Act, 1124 and S.28 C. P. C. in that at about 1-30 P. M. on 25-11-1950 the two accused in furtherance of their common intention unauthorisedly sold to Kunhumuhammad examined as the third witness for the prosecution a bag of sugar for Rs. 200/- which was in excess of the permissible price which was Rs. 105. The Magistrate convicted both of them and sentenced the first accused to pay a fine of Rs, 2000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and the second accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorours imprisonment for five months, but in appeal the Sessions Judge of Anjikaimal acquitted the father who was the first accused and confirmed the conviction of the son, the second accused. It is against this conviction that this revision is filed.

(2.) Shri M. K. Nambiar who appeared for the petitioner raised four points and urged that a decision in his favour on any one of them would be sufficient to quash the conviction. The points raised by him were (1) that no proper questions were put to the accused by the Magistrate as required by S.259 of the Cochin Code of Criminal Procedure corresponding to S.342 of the Indian Code; (2) that the circumstances favourable to the accused had not been considered by either of the courts below; (3) that there is no evidence on which the conviction could be based and that whatever evidence is given by the first and third witnesses cannot be acted upon in the absence of corroboration as the witnesses are accomplices; and (4) that there is no law whose violation entails a penalty as the law that is alleged to have been violated does not penalise such violation. The facts may be briefly stated. The first accused is a merchant in Mattanchery doing wholesale business and holding a license for the sale of sugar. The eon who is the second accused is in management of the business. The price of sugar was regulated and the sale for a price in excess thereof was prohibited by the law and the rules detailed in the charge. Having heard that sugar was being sold at higher than the permissible rate from this business the Circle Inspector of Police wanted to entrap the accused and with that object instructed Kunhumuhammad, the third witness for the prosecution, to purchase one bag of sugar therefrom. Kunhumuhammad approached Pareedkunhi, examined as the first witness for the prosecution, who was a broker. Pareedkunhi arranged for the purchase. The prosecution case is that accordingly two currency notes of the face value of Re. 100 each marked for future identification were given by the Inspector to Kunhumuhammad which were given by him to Pareedkunhi who in his turn gave them to the second accused who handed them over to the first accused. The said Rs. 200/- was given as the price of one bag of sugar according to the prosecution. The sugar was purchased and carried from the godown to a jetty by two boatmen, Vasu and Kochukunhumuhammad examined as the 7th and 11th witnesses respectively for the prosecution. It is on the evidence of these four witnesses, namely, prosecution witnesses 1, 3, 7 and 11, that the prosecution depends.

(3.) The Magistrate posed the question in paragraph 6 of his judgment thus: