MATHEN JOSEPH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused Mathen Joseph, has been convicted by the District Magistrate, Alleppey Under Section 7 (1) of the Essential Com-modities Act (shortly etated the Act) read with Clause 3 of the Kerala Rice and Paddy (Procurement by Levy) Order, 1966 (shortly stated the Order) and sentenced to undergo R. I. for 2 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/. . The conviction and sentence have been confirmed in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Alleppey.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that the accused failed to measure the required quantity of paddy as per notice issued to him. According to the prosecution, two notices were issued and they are Exs. P5 and P6 in the case. Under Ex. P5 dated 2. 3-67 the accused was called upon to measure 13 quintals and 17 kilograms of paddy from the paddy field comprised in S. No. 910/3 of Alleppey village and under Ex. P6 dated 16-2. 67 he was required to measure 59 quintals and 5 kilograms of paddy from the property comprised in S. No. 411/1 of Aryad South Village. The prosecution claims to have served Ex. P5 by affixture and Ex, P6 personally. The charge was denied by the accused. According to him, no notices were served on him and he has not cultivated any of the paddy fields as alleged by the prosecution. The notices are invalid in law. The Courts below repelling these contentions have entered the conviction.

(3.) ON a consideration of the evidence in the ease, I am not satisfied that the conviction has rightly been entered. The Courts below, it ia regrettable to observe, have gone at a tangent and based their conclusions on irrelevant or inadmissible items of evidence. For instanoe, the conviction is based among other items of evidenoe, on Exs. P8 and P9 the so called A form statements alleged to have been furnished by a pumping contractor. In this document the cultivator is shown as 'mathen Joseph' the present accused. But the contractor who is said to have produced these doouments to the Punja Special Officer has not been examined and there ia no knowing on what data he happened to describe in these documents the accused as the person who was cultivating the field. One Kunoheria is stated to be the pumping contractor and it is alleged that these A-forms were filed by him before the Punja Special Officer; but the Punja Special Officer when examined aa Pw. 12, stated in clear terms that he did not know who had produced Exs. P8 and P9 in his office. Exs. P8 and P9 * * * * How could the acoused who had no part to play in the preparation or filing of Exs. P8 and P9 be mulcted with liability baaing on those documents? It ia surprising that the learned appellate Judge has accepted and acted on these documents saying that they are documents "maintained in the regular course of official business. " Maintained by whom and in the course of whose official business? The learned trial Magistrate it is important to remember in this connection, bad rejected these documents and declined to act upon them. The trial Court's observation regarding these documents is as follows: The person who has submitted Exs. P3 and P9 is not examined in this case. It is not known as to how he happened to include the name of Mathen Joseph in Exs. P8 and P9 aa the cultivator. Further in Exs. P8 and P9 the address of this Mathen Joseph is also not Bhown. As such Exa. P8 and P9 do not help us to say that the acoused was cultivating the respective paddy fields. So saying the two documenta were discarded by the learned magistrate and it is basing on these discarded item of evidence that the learned appellate Judge has confirmed the conviction of the accused.