KARIM Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant in Crl. A. No. 162/99 was convicted for the offence under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as E.C. Act) by Special Judge for E.C. Act cases, Thrissur in S.T. No. 16/1995. Appellant in Crl.A. No. 463/99 was convicted for the same offences by the same court in S.T. No. 8/95. Case against the appellant in Crl. A. 162/99 was that he unauthorisedly stored 225 litres of diesel in violation of Clauses 6 and 7 of Kerala Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel Oil (Maintenance and Regulations of Supplies) Order 1979 and thereby committed the offences. Case against appellant in Crl.A. 463/99 was that he being the proprietor of grocery shop stored 1029 kgs. of rice, 477 kgs. of cereals and pulses, 66 Kgs of sugar and 120.65 kgs. of baby food without any license and without keeping the accounts and stock register and without displaying the price list and stock board and thereby violated the provisions of Clause 3 of Kerala Food Grains Dealers Licensing Order, Clauses 3 and 5 of Kerala Edible Oils Vanaspati and Baby food Dealers' Licensing Order 1975 and Clause 3 and 6 of Kerala Essential Commodities (Maintenance of Accounts and Display of Price List and Stocks) Order, 1980 and Clauses 3 and 4 of Kerala Pulses Dealers Licensing Second Order, 1967 and thereby committed the offence. Both the appellants pleaded not guilty. They were convicted by learned Special Judge as per judgment dated 22/1/1999 and judgment dated 24/6/99 respectively.

(2.) As the points to be considered in both the appeals are identical, they are disposed by common judgment.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants vehemently argued relying on the decision of Apex Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Paramasiva Pandian that after 31/8/1998 court below had no jurisdiction to try or to convict appellants for the offences under E.C. Act and therefore trial and conviction are vitiated and therefore appellants are entitled to be acquitted. Relying on the decisions of apex courts in State of U.P v. Sabir Ali and Anr. , State of M.P. v. Bhooraji and Ors. , decision of a single Judge of this Court in Mahadeva Iyer v. State of Kerala 2004 (2) KLT 562 and various High Courts in Sonelal v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. 1972 M.P.L.J. 763, Sridhar Jha v. Emperor AIR 1947 Patna 234, State of Orissa v. Khalli Patro 1985 (2) Crimes 824, Chandana Surya Rao v. State 1989 Crl. L.J 2077, Nandakishore Panigrahi v. Mayadhar Nayak and Ors. 1968 Crl. L.J. 333 it was vehemently argued that appellants were facing trial and threat of conviction for the last seven years and that too not for their fault and it is not in the interest of justice to prolong the agony further and therefore appellants are to be acquitted and are not to be driven for a de novo trial by a competent court. It was argued that appellants cannot be made to suffer for the mistake committed by the court in trying the appellants without jurisdiction and therefore appeals are only to be allowed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that if it is to be found that trial court had no jurisdiction and the trial is vitiated, the only course open is to send back the records for fresh trial by competent court and appellants cannot be acquitted.