SAVRIKUTTY ALIAS CHACKO ZAVIER Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant stands convicted of the offence punishable under Section 7 (1) (a) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 [for short the Act] for violating the provisions of Clause 5 (a) of the Kerala Rationing order and Clause 3 of the Kerala Foodgrains Dealers (Licensing) Order insofar as he had, without due licence, stored in his godown 10262 kg ration rice contained in 142 bags, 884 kgs of ration boiled rice contained in 12 bags and 14,318 kgs of ration wheat contained in 159 bags. It was detected by about 6. 30 PM on 13. 2. 1998 by the police party. Acomplaint was taken cognizance of by a Special Court constituted in terms of Section 12a of the Act. Appreciating the evidence on record, the appellants was, convicted of the said offence and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/-with a default sentence.

(2.) IT is contended by the counsel for the appellant, assailing the conviction, that the court below did not have any jurisdiction to try the offence, which was taken cognizance of on 18. 2. 1999, the trial of which commenced on 20. 1. 2000 before the Special Court . IT is also submitted that the Special Court was constituted in terms of the Essential Commodities Act (Special Provisions)Act, 1981, which came into force on 1. 9. 1982 for a period of 15 years. There was further extension by way of two ordinances one after another. The last one was not replaced by a competent enactment. That ordinance lapsed. Therefore, the Special Court constituted under Section 12a of the Act did not exist to try the offence. So the case ought to have been tried by a competent magistrate. In this regard, the decision reported in State of Tamil Nadu v. Paramasiva Pandian {2002 (1) S. C. C. 15} has been heavily relied on. The decision in Karim v. State of Kerala {2006 (2) KLT 874} is also relied on to contend that the trial as well as the conviction was thus vitiated.

(3.) THE competence of the court which tried the offence and convicted the appellant is a very material contention going to the root of the jurisdiction of the court which tried him. That contention can be taken note of, even without a ground urged, being a question of law.