RAVI Vs. STATE REP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused in S.T. No. 68/1993, on the file of the Special Judge for E.C. Act cases, Thrissur, is the appellant. He face the charges under Clause 3 of the Kerala Food Stuffs (Display of Prices by Catering Establishments) Order, 1977, in short 'the Order', and also under Sections 3 & 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, in short 'the Act'. The learned Special Judge found the accused guilty of the offence alleged, and therefore, convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- under Clause 3 of the Order, read with Sections 3 & 7 of the Act. In default of payment of fine, the accused was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. The same is under challenge through this appeal.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that, the appellant, accused, is in charge of the 'Queens Restaurant and Hotel' at Piravom, within the Piravom Municipality. On 11.5.1993, at about 1.30 p.m., PW.1, the Taluk Supply Officer, Muvattupuzha, and PW.2, the Rationing Inspector of Muvattupuzha, along with the driver of PW.1, went to the hotel of the appellant. They had meals. An amount of Rs. 21/- was realised from Pws.1 to 3 for three meals. However, Pws.1 and 2 found that the price board of the food stuffs in the establishment was not displayed, as required under C1.3 of the order. On query, the appellant answered that the board was displayed, but it overturned, and, therefore, it was kept underneath the cash table. The said display board was also shown to Pws.1 and 2. Ext.P1 mahazar was prepared to this effect by PW.1. It was accordingly forwarded to Piravom Police Station, who subsequently registered Crime No. 103/93 of that police station, for the offence, as stated above.

(3.) When the appeal came up for consideration, the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that under Section 12(a) of the Act, because of the lapse of the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981, in short 'the Special Provisions Act', the power of the Special Courts to hold trial under the Act had extinguished, and, therefore, the trial is vitiated and the impugned judgment is bad in law. The learned Counsel relied on State of Tamil Nadu v. Paramasiva Pandian (2002) SCC (Cri.) 62, to emphasise the point. That was a case where in the year 2004, an offence was committed by the accused, and they were remanded to judicial custody by the Special Court constituted under the provisions of the Act. The Apex Court found that as the Special Provisions Act had lapsed, the Special Court had no authority, and, hence sustained the order of the High Court of Tamil Nadu, which set aside the proceedings initiated against the accused therein.