JOHN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question which was considered and decided by the learned Single Judge as per the impugned judgment is whether the appellant has set up his small scale industrial unit styled as J. J. T. Oil Mills at Pattikad during the period commencing from April 1,1979 and ending with 21st october,1980ornot? THE learned Single Judge has found that the appellant has not set up his unit within the said period. If the finding is found to be sustainable, dismissal of the O. P. by the impugned judgment is only to be upheld in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1987 (1)KLT 28 3 (Pournatni Oil Mills v. State of Kerala ). As such, the only question to be considered in the appeal is whether the above finding of the learned single judge is sustainable in law

(2.) WE have heard the counsel on both sides at length. However, we feel that in the manner in which we propose to dispose of the appeal, it is not necessary to state the facts of the case in detail.

(3.) (ii) Storing copra; and (iii) manufacture of oil with reference to building with door no. 137a/v, for a period up to 31. 3. 1981 on payment of Rs. 53a as licence fee. Ext. 'm' dt. 7. 10. 1980 would show that sizable' quantity of Copra was also purchased for JJ. T. Oil Mills from one Copra broker and Commission agent. Analysing the new documents we find that if all of them are genuine, they may help the appellant to a very great extent to establish his contention. However, since the appellant has produced the above documents only in this appeal and that too only photocopies, it may not be proper on our part to admit them as additional documents in this appeal and to take a final decision on the claim of the appellant based upon such documents as well, treating them as genuine especially when the learned Government Pleader wanted the department to be given an opportunity to challenge the genuineness of them.