CHACKO MATHEW Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in the revision petition was convicted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate under S.4 and 5 of the Kerala Baby Food (Declaration of Stocks and Maintenance of Accounts) Order of 1966 read with S.3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act of 1955, but was released under the Probation of Offenders Act. On appeal the Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction. In revision it is urged that the conviction itself cannot stand.

(2.) At the time of admission of the revision petition I issued notice calling upon the petitioner to show cause why his release under the Probation of Offenders Act should not be set aside and he be not sentenced in case his conviction was found to be correct; and that is the calendar revision. The counsel of the petitioner draws my attention to my own decision in Udayasi, Metro Cycle Importing Co. v. State of Kerala ( 1969 KLT 69 ), where I have dealt with a similar provision in the Kerala Cycle Tyres and Tubes (Declaration of Stocks and Maintenance of Accounts) Order of 1966. I have held in that decision that S.4 of the Cycle Tyres and Tubes Order was beyond the competence of the delegated powers of the State Government and therefore invalid. S.4 of the Baby Food Order is similar in terms; and the authorisation given by the Central Government is also in similar terms. On the same reasoning of the reported decision, S.4 of the Baby Food Order has also to be held to be beyond the competence of the delegated powers of the State Government and thus invalid. The charge against the petitioner under S.4 is therefore quashed and the petitioner is acquitted of that charge.

(3.) What remains is the charge under S.5 of the same Order in that the petitioner failed to keep correct accounts as contemplated by that section. On this question the Sub Divisional Magistrate has held that the closing balance of Glaxo on 30th March 1967 was in fact 62 tins, but what was shown in the accounts was only 38 tins, so that the accounts were incorrect. The Sessions Judge has considered this question in Para.7 of her judgment; and she has held that there was no mistake in that entry and that entry was correct. But, she has pointed out some other irregularities in the accounts of 1st April and 3rd April 1967. And it was on this basis that the Sessions Judge has confirmed the conviction of the petitioner.