P RATHINAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has been arrayed as A-2 in S.T.C. No. 22/89, pending on the file of the Special Court (District and Sessions Judge) constituted under the Essential Commodities Act, Madurai. He is being prosecuted along with four others, for having contravened clause 6(4) of Tamil Nadu Scheduled Commodities (Regulation and Distribution by Card System) Order, read with section 3 and 7(i)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act. Initiation of prosecution was by the respondent, who is the Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies, C.I.D., Madurai. In the final report forwarded to the Special Court, petitioner had been described as the Administrator of Madurai Janatha Co-operative Stores Ltd., which has been shown as A-1. The final report further stales that as the Administrator, petitioner was responsible for the day-to-day affairs of A-1 and it was his duty to see that essential articles are properly supplied to the card holders, making necessary entries in the cards, apart from maintaining proper stocks, and maintaining proper accounts in respect of sales and stock of essential commodities. In another portion of the final report, an averment is found that without the knowledge and connivance of the petitioner, A-3 and A4 who arc the Salesman of the Co-operative Stores could not have committed the offences and therefore, it was evident that the petitioner had not exercised due care to prevent the commission of the offence by checking the every day sales of essential articles and its stock. It is the prosecution case that A-3 and A-4 are the salesman in charge of the main and branch fair price shops and it was their duty to supply essential articles to card holders by making necessary entries in the cards, a part from maintaining stock register and other registers. They had to prepare bills for supply of 1. essential commodities. A-3 and A-4 are stated to have sold sugar belonging to the Fair Price Shop to A-5 a grocery shop owner by making it appear that sugar had been distributed to several card holders, who were enlisted under this Fair Price Shop. Those card holders have been examined during investigation and it is their case that they did not obtain sugar during the relevant period.

(2.) Narration of facts will clearly show that the petitioner is sought to be made vicariously liable, since he has been shown as the Administrator of the Co-operative Stores. PetitionerTs counsel took me through the entire records forwarded to the Special Judge, on completion of investigation. There is not even an iota of material to indicate that the petitioner was the Administrator of A-1 Co-operative Stores, during the relevant period and further that he was in charge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. Once these facts are not available in entire record, the question of the petitioner not having exercised, due care to prevent commission of offence, cannot arise by any stretch of imagination. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Fairly stated, that the entire record available, does not link the petitioner with the crime alleged. The pending prosecution is liable to be quashed in so far as it concerns the petitioner, due to total lack of material to connect him with the offence alleged.

(3.) Kader, J. in A.T.R.K. Rangarajan and others v. State, in similar circumstances in respect of members of the Managing Committee of the main accused Society, observed as hereunder: As already pointed out, the complaint filed by the Inspector of Police does not make any allegation against the petitioners which can lead to the inference that they can also be made vicariously liable. The Principle enunciated in the aforestated decision will squarely apply to the instant facts.