R JAMNADAS SEWEG Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed by the petitioner/ second accused under Sec. 482, Crl.P.C., to quash the proceedings against him in S.T.C.No. 57 of 1991 on the file of the Special Judge (Essential Commodities Act), Madras, for offences under Clause 3 of Tamil Nadu Scheduled Articles (Prescription of Standards) Order, 1977 read with Sec. 7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act. The prosecution has alleged in the charge-sheet that this petitioner is the managing partner of Tondiarpet Service Station and on 16.8.1990 at about 12.00 hours when the Assistant Commissioner of Civil Supplies, Tondiarpet Zone inspected the service station by name, Tondiarpet service station and purchased 3 litres of petrol for examination of its quality; it was found adulterated and, therefore, he along with the manager of the service station, namely A-3 and the service station as A-1 have been prosecuted for the above said offences.

(2.) THE petitioner, who is the second accused, would contend that there are three partners for the "Tondiarpet service station" and even according to the document filed by the prosecution, namely, the copy of the order appointing Messrs Tondiarpet service station as a dealer in petrol, diesel oil on 1.6.1990 the three partners name is mentioned and there is no allegation in the charge sheet that this petitioner was in effective control or management of the service station and unless such an allegation is made in the charge-sheet, he cannot be prosecuted for the above said offences. THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Mr. Panchapagesan referring to the decisions in Jeyanthi v. State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, 1990 L.W. (Crl.) 398 and State of Karnataka v. Pratap Chand, 1982 M.L.J. (Crl.) 164 would argue that unless there is specific allegation that the accused was in actual management of the business, which allegation is absent in this charge-sheet, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted. In the complaint given against the petitioner, the first accused is the service station 3rd accused is the manager and the petitioner is the second accused. Either in the charge-sheet or in the statement recorded from the witnesses it is not stated any-where that this petitioner was in actual management or control of the first accused's service station. THE order of the appointment of the dealership also shows that there are three partners for the first accused's service station and this petitioner is one among them. THE prosecution has not given any reasons for choosing this petitioner as an accused, omitting the other two partners. THE learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would contend that the prosecution is always entitled to amend the charge-sheet and file additional documents with regard to the role of this petitioner in the first accused's service station, and, therefore, for the reasons that there is no mention of the word that the petitioner is in actual control of the business of the first accused, the proceedings cannot be quashed. Though this petition was filed in 1992 till now no steps were taken to amend the chargesheet or adduce any additional documents to show that this petitioner is in actual management. Among the petitioners, some may have the actual control of the business and some may be sleeping partners. Unless specific allegation is made in the charge-sheet or any statement has been obtained to the effect that the accused who is charge-sheeted was the person in management of the business, the proceedings against the accused for the sole reason that he was a partner of the business, cannot be entertained. THErefore, in view of the absence of the allegation in the charge-sheet with regard to the actual participation of this petitioner in the business of the first accused, the complaint is not sustainable. THErefore, the proceedings against the petitioner is liable to be quashed.