S RAMALINGAM Vs. TARANI SUGAR MILLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. Ramalingam, the petitioner herein, filed a private complaint against the respondents requesting the court to take cognizance for the offence under Clause 3(3) of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 read with Sec.7(1) (a) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The trial court, instead of taking the case on file, forwarded the complaint for investigation by the Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies C.I.D. under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. In pursuance of the said order, the investigation was carried on. Ultimately, the police filed a final report to the effect that it is a case of civil nature and therefore, the complainant could seek his remedy through the civil court. Accepting the said report, the Special Court returned the complaint and closed the matter observing that no cognizance can be taken and as such, the complaint is not maintainable. The said order is the subject matter of challenge before this court in this revision.

(2.) I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also issued notice to the Additional Public Prosecutor to assist this court with reference to the question raised in this case. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also made his submission.

(3.) According to the petitioner/ complainant, the petitioner being a sugarcane grower supplied sugarcane to the accused valued about Rs. 5,51,777-94 as per the agreed price at the rate of Rs. 658-80 per M.T. and in pursuance of the agreement, the petitioner/ complainant received only Rs. 5,13,765-05 and the balance of Rs. 33,313/- was not paid despite repeated demands through notices and as such, the respondents/accused contravened Clause 3(3) of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 and they are liable to be punished under Section 7(i) (a) of the Essential Commodities Act.