PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. K V K RAMASAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the Madras State against the acquittal of one Ramaswami, the accused in C. C. No. 155 of 1949, by the Sessions Judge off Salem in C. A. No. 174 of 1949, and shows the utility and importance of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act in certain cases. This Ramaswami, as the Secretary of the village school building committee, Pattanam, Salem district, has admittedly, been given 2 1/2 tons of M. S. Rounds 5/8" from one S. Kuppuswami Chetti of Madras (P.W. 1's firm), for making certain additions and constructions in an elementary school in Pattanam Village. He agreed, under the permit, that he would utilise the material that was allowed to be purchased by him for the purpose above-mentioned and that he would return the permit to the Director of Industries and Commerce and the Provincial Iron and Steel Controller if the purpose for which it had been issued ceased to exist, and the permit was made valid for 30 days from the date of its issue, namely, 6-1-1949. Admittedly, he bought the goods through P.W. 2 from P.W. 1's firm on 25-1-1949, after endorsing the permit in his favour. P.W. 2 swore that he was given Rs. 875-156 and the permit by the accused and that he bought the articles from P.W. 1 and put them in a cart and was taking them to the vail-way station in Madras (Salt Cotaurs) to book them for Salem when the accused met him and took over the articles from him. He was not believed regarding this by the trial Court which, however, convicted the accused under Clause 8 of the Iron and Steel Production and Distribution Order read with Clauses 7 (1) and 17 (2) of Central Act 24 of 1946, holding that he and P.W. 2 must have colluded together to use the goods purchased under the permit otherwise than in accordance with the conditions mentioned in it. It sentenced the accused to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000. It observed that there was no proof that he had disposed of the goods in the black-market with a view to enrich himself. The accused had examined D.WS. 1 to 3 to show that he had given away the permit to P.W. 2, under the orders of P.W. 5, the President of the School Committee and a relation of P.W. 2, for some money due by the school committee to P.W. 2, for iron articles, weighing 8 cwt. and odd, got already and utilised for the building of the school. He had also said that despite several demands, P.W. 2, failed to deliver to him the goods purchased under the permit and that he intended to proceed against P.W. 2, for breach of trust, regarding these iron goods after this case was over.

(2.) On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, salem, held that upon the proved facts of evidence and taking them at their face value the accused was entitled to an acquittal as there was no evidence to show what happened to the materials purchased under the peimit. Ex. P. 1, by P.W. 2 from P.W. 1, or that they had been disposed of in the black-market or in any improper manner. He relied on the wording of Rule 8 of the Iron and Steel Production and Distribution Control Order, 1941, which, runs as follows:

(3.) I have perused the records, and heard the learned Public Prosecutor for the appellant, and Mr. Kailasam, the learned Counsel for the accused Ramaswami. There is no doubt in my mind that the learned Sessions Judge was wrong in acquitting Ramaswami in the light of the evidence in the case and in view of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act which throws on the accused the burden of proving what became of the materials he brought under Ex. P. 1.