RAMAIAH NADAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was convicted by the learned Principal Sessions Judge and Special Judge (E.C. Act), Madurai in S.T.C. No.29 of 1994 under Sec.7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act read with O.3(3), 4, 5, 7 and 35 of the Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1985 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,500, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 4 months.

(2.) THE appellant is the licenced fertiliser dealer bearing licence No.703/92. THE licenced premises is at Mecca Mandapam. On 16.9.1992, at about 12.00 hours, the complainant, Fertilizer Inspector, Thakkalai, inspected the premises of the accused and on physical verification, found an excess stock of 11.312 kgs of various chemical fertilizers and there was also a shortage of 120 kgs. of Muriate of Potash. At the time of inspection, the appellant was not there, but one salesman, T. Chellam was available and the said person could not account for the excess and deficit in the stock. THErefore, after giving a day's time to explain, P.W.1, the Complainant went back and returned the next day. On 17.9.1992 at about 12 hours, when the complainant went to the premises of the accused, the appellant was present and when queried about the excess and deficit stocks, he could not reply. THErefore, the appellant has been prosecuted.

(3.) THE next violation is O.4 which speaks about display of stock position and price list of fertilisers by the dealers. THEre is no evidence from P.Ws. 1 to 3 that there was no display of stock position and price list of fertilisers. This violation only penalises non display of stock position and price list of fertilizers, but it does not speak, about wrong display. Moreover, it is not the case of the prosecution that there was no display of stocks or price list. May be it is the duty of the appellant as a dealer to display the correct stock position. But in this case, in the absence of any evidence that he had not displayed the correct stock position, I am unable to hold that O.4 has been violated by the appellant.