STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. NATARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused 1 to 14 in S.T.C.No. 9 of 1984, on the file of the Special Court for Essential Commodities Act cases, Thanjavur are the appellants herein. The charge against them as amended is that the accused 1 to 14 were associates and doing business in adulterated cement and selling the same as quality cement knowing them to be adulterated. On 20.7.1983 morning, the first accused Natarajan sold five bags of cement for Rs.350.00 to P.W.1 Philavendran which are adulterated. The accused have also stored large quantity of adulterated cement in 40 bags and two heaps of (10 & 9) adulterated cement for sale and 440 bags of black silicate mineral for addulterating the cement: The Cement sold is not of the prescribed standard. They have sold and stored for sale adulterated cement. Hence the accused noted in the margin have contravened Clause 3 of Cement (quality Control) Order, 1962 punishable under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and hence the charge.

(2.) The prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 6. The accused examined Kesavan and Subban as D.Ws.1 and 2 respectively. Exhibits P-i to P-5 were filed and M.Os. 1 to 3 were marked. The trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence found Accused 1 to 4, and 6 to 14 not guilty and acquitted them. The fifth accused died before the pronouncement of the judgement by the trial Court. The State has filed this appeal against the judgment of trial Court. StateofT Page2of4

(3.) The learned Public Prosecutor took me through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and contended that the lower court has committed material irregularity in not accepting the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. P.W.1 is Philavendran and he was doing business in mosaic stones under the name and style of Tamil nadu Mosaic Tiles Company. He purchased five bags of cement from the first accused at the rate of Rs. 70/per bag. P.W.1 book the cement bags to his company and found that the cement bags were adulterated and so he had taken back the five bags of cement to the house of first accused at about 10 -00 a.m. on 20/7/1983. P.W.1 appeared to have asked the first accused to take back the cement and repay the sale price. P.W.1 also noticed in the premises of the first accused that adulterated cement bags were also stored. According to P.W.1, the first accused threatened him, that if P.W.1 would ask for the return of the sale price, he would murder him. P.W.1 kept the five bags of cement in the premises of first accused and returned. Then he gave a report to the Police, Civil Supplies Investigation Wing (Crimes). Exhibit P-I is the report. P.W.2 Thangaraj also supported the evidence of P.W.1 and he stated that he accompanied P.W.1 to the Police Station, when the latter gave a report to the Inspector of Police. The Inspector of Police, took P.Ws.1 and 2 to the house of the first accused at about 4.00 p.m. on that day and they noticed that accused 1 to 14 had been mixing and making adulterated cement. The Inspector of Police waited to catch hold of these accused. Accused 1 & 2 escaped from the house, but the Inspector of Police apprehended the other accused and seized the cement and took samples from the 9 bags of cement kept in the room and also samples from the 220 bags separately. The Inspector of Police seized the other materials kept for packing the cement under mahazar Exhibit P-2, which was tested by Natarajan and M.Os. 1 to 3 were seized under that mahazar. P.W. 3 Natarajan is an employee working in the Tamil nadu Mosaic Tiles Company run by P.W.1. He has accompanied P.W.1 for the purchase of five bags of cement from first accused and he corroborates the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2. P.W. 4 Manian is the Assistant Working in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board at Mannargudi in May, 1984. He owned a house at Arokia Nagar, Thanjavur. It appears that some of the accused were residing in his house and he was examined by the prosecution to show that the accused were residing in his house. First accused was also stated to be an occupant of the house of P.W.4, wherein first accused was doing business in adulterated cement. But this witness turned hostile while he was examined in court and his evidence in chief is that he did not know whether any of the accused in court was a resident in his house. P.W. 5, Damodaran, is the translator in the Lower Court. He deposed the fact that he had received the material objects suspected to be adulterated cement and he sent the same to the analyst for examination and report. He received report from the analyst under Exhibit P-5. P.W.6 was the Inspector of Police (Crimes) in the Civil Supplies Investigation Wing, Thanjavur between 8/3/1983 and 17/6/1985, He received a report from P.W.1 at 2.00 p.m. on 20/7/1986 and P.W.1 was accompanied by P.Ws. 2and 3. He went to the police station along with P.Ws 1 to 3 and registered case in Crime No. 387 of 1983 against accused I to 14. Then he went to the house of first accused and on seeing the police, accused 1 and 2 escaped from the house and he found accused 3 to 14 mixing some black powder with cement. P.W.6 arrested accused 3 to 14 in the presence of P.Ws 2 and 3 and other witnesses and he took samples from the 40 bags of adulterated cement and also from the 240 bags of kadappa stone powder kept there for adulteration and other materials used for packing under Ex.P-2 mahazar. He sent a requisition to the Judicial Magistrate on 12-8-1986 requesting him to send the samples for chemical analysis. He was engaged in the month of September, 1983 in preventive detention cases and so he could not send the samples received from the police under Ex.P-3 on 10/11/1983 for chemical analysis. He completed the investigation on 11/2/1984 and after completing investigation on 13/2/1984 he filed charge sheet against the accused on that date. Due to the order of anticipatory bail granted by this court, accused 1 and 2 could not be arrested. Accused 1 to 14 were questioned under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code separately, and they denied the occurrence and pleaded not guilty. Thereafter the accused detained kesovan and Subbanas D.Ws.1 and 2 respectively D.W.1 and 2 supported the case of defence. The lower court accepted the case of defence in preference to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and acquitted all the accused except the 5th accused, who had expired during the trial. As against the acquittal, the State is in the appeal.