DEEN MOHAMMED Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused before the Special Judge under the Essential commodities Act in S. T. C. No. 75 of 1991 is the revision petitioner herein challenging the propriety and legality of the impugned order passed by the learned Judge in the above proceeding dated 25. 5. 1992.

(2.) THE accused was running a grocery shop at Srimushnam village, Kattumannarkoil Taluk. On the report of the Special Tahsildar for not having exhibited the price and stock list of the notified commodities under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Essential Commodities (Display of Stocks and Prices and Maintenance of Accounts) Order, 1977, the concerned police, namely, the respondent the Civil Supplies, C. I. D. herein took up investigation and filed a final report against the petitioner and consequent to the taking cognizance of the same the learned Special Judge issued process to the accused followed by his appearance and trial was commenced. In fact, P. W. 1 was examined in part. At that stage for want of sanction by the competent authority as provided in clause 9 of the abovesaid order a petition was filed before the trial court by and on behalf of the petitioner/ accused praying for discharge, however, by passing the impugned order, the learned Judge has declined to discharge the accused and aggrieved at this, the present revision has been filed and after admission it came up for hearing.

(3.) THE next question remains to be seen is that even in a trial of a summon case can it be held that discharge prayer is barred from being prayed for want of legal sanction as contemplated by law. THE answer for this question is that the accused is entitled to and that question can be raised at any stage before the conclusion of the trial. Clause 9 of the abovesaid order clearly emphasize the accord of sanction to prosecute and if there is no such sanction order, the respondent cannot at all prosecute the accused for the reasonings spelt out in the said clause. This court following the decision by the Supreme Court held often that the validity of the sanction or non-availability of the sanction question can be raised by the accused before the proceedings are over in any case. I do not find any embargo for the accused in raising the point for discharge for the non-availability of the sanction or invalidity of the sanction. THE learned Special Judge while passing the impugned order has thus committed a serious mistake and the approach adopted by him is totally erroneous and not on par with law. It is, therefore under the circumstances, I hereby set aside the said order.