K.S. SETHU Vs. P.K. MANIGANDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these petitions are disposed of together by a common order. Since the contentions raised, are identical and the petitioner and respondent are the same. The petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.1411 of 1984 is the accused in STC No.40 of 1983, on the file of the Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act cases, Madurai. The petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.1439 of 1984, who is the same person in Crl.M.P.No.1411 of 1984 as well is the accused in STC No.41 of 1983, pending on the file of the same Special Judge, Madurai.

(2.) THE prosecution against the petitioner in both these summary trial cases had been initiated by the respondent, who was then the Assistant Director of Agriculture (Training), Nilakottai. The petitioner is stated to have violated clause 3(3) of the Sugar Cane (Control) Order. 1966 punishable under Section 7(1)(a) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. According to the complaint in each one of these cases, the petitioner was reappointed as Managing Director of Madurai Sugar Mills Limited, Pandiarajapuram under Section 173(2) of the Companies Act. He continued to be the Chairman of the said Sugar Mills, Madurai Sugar Mills Limited was manufacturing Sugar and the petitioner used to purchase sugarcane from the sugarcane growers within his jurisdiction. The sugarcane growers will have to register their names and execute agreements with the Sugar Mills for supply of Sugarcane. These two complaints relate to sugarcane growers, E. Bangarusamy, A.M. Subba Reddiar; M.R. Alagarsamy; C.R. Muthukrishnan; K. Sathiyamoorthy and A. Appayan. Though these sugarcane growers had supplied sugarcanes to the petitioner, he had not paid the entire arrears within 14 days from the date of delivery of sugarcane, to the seller, as ordained under Clause 3(3) of the Sugarcane (Control) Order. Inspite of repeated demands the petitioner did not choose to pay the arrears and hence these prosecutions were initiated.

(3.) ON these contentions I have heard Mr. S. Shanmughavelayutham, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, he contended that an offences under Clause 3(3) of the Sugarcane (Control) Order was complete, on non -payment of the price of sugarcane, on the expiry of 14 days of supply. He contended that Clause 3(3A) of the Order, cannot erase the offence under Section 3(3) of the order, and the producer was bound additionally to pay interest if payment had not been made within 14 days of delivery of sugar. He then submitted that Clause 3(7) of the Order may not apply to the instant case for the cane suppliers had come forward with their claims. The words "or for any other reason" found in Clause 3(7) will not ensure in favour of the petitioner.