SEBASTIAN Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE MADURAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners/Accused 2 and 3 have preferred this Revision against the judgment in S.T.C. No. 3 of 1993 on the file of the Special District and Sessions Judge (For E.C.Act) Madurai, convicting them for the offences under Clause 6(3) of Tamil Nadu Scheduled Commodities (RDCS) Order and Section 7(1)(a)(2) of the Essential Commodities Act and sentencing them to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1500/- each in default to suffer three months simple imprisonment each.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is as follows : PW-1 Muthu Kamatchi was the Deputy Tahsildar. He gave a complaint Ex. P1. PW-2 Arivazhagan was working in the Civil Supplies Corporation at Usilampatti. A-4 - Pandian was the salesman in charge of the Rations Shop at Athikaripatti. On 3-10-1991 various essential commodities were distributed to Melathirumanickarn, Athikaripatti and Avalchery Ration Shops through Invoice Ex. P-2. PW-3 - Ayyavoor was the concerned Taluk Supply Officer. On 7-10-1991 one Ravichandran gave a complaint to the Rrevenue Divisional Officer. On the basis of which, the Revenue Divisional Officer, on 9-10-1991 asked the said PW-3 to go and inspect the Ration Shop, where some malpractice is alleged and send a report. On 9- 10-1991 a statement was obtained from Sebastain Ex. P-3. One Mayan gave a statement Ex. P4, whois the salesman in Avalchery Ration shop. The statement given by Pandian is Ex. P-5, who is a salesman at Athikaripatti. As per the statement of these persons, the essential commodities, which have been distributed for distribution to the Ration Card Holders have not actually been distributed, but they made entries in the concerned Registers as if the essential commodities have been distributed to the Ration card Holders. After making false entries they all shared the amount among themselves. Subsequently all the three persons have been suspended. On the basis of the report, the police, conducted investigation and examined various card holders to show that there is no entry relating to the purchase of articles on the relevant dates in the ration cards and they have not obtained any article from the respective ration shops on the respective dates. The Investigating Officer, after collecting various documents filed a charge-sheet against the accused persons for the offences under Clause 6(3) of the Tamil Nadu Scheduled Commodities (RDCS) Order and Section 7(1)(a)(2) of the Essential Commodities Act. The trial Court after elaborate trial convicted Accused 1 to 4. The petitioners A-2 and A-3 were the salesmen of two different ration shops and they have been convicted and sentenced as referred to earlier.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Government Advocate appearing for the State. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioners are only salesmen and there is no material to show that actually they have distributed to the persons who were other than the card holders. Normally when there is crowd of 70-80 persons in the shop to get the supply of essential commodities, the salesmen could not have time to make entries in the ration cards and even without making the entries in the ration cards, it is the normal practice, the ration card holders who get supply from the Ration shop will go away. The sum and substance of the argument of the counsel for the petitioners is that they could not be held responsible for the offences for the mere reason that there is failure on their part to make entries in the ration cards. Actually the offences relate to the violation of the rules by not entering the relevant factual aspects in the ration cards. So, it is an admitted fact that though the Registers maintained by the petitioners in their respective shops show that there was distribution of essential commodities to the various Card holders, no such corresponding entries were made in the connected ration cards. With regard to this aspect there is evidence available in the record and this has been elaborately considered by the lower Court and a correct conclusion has been arrived at and the offences have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, I see no justification to interfere with the findings given by the lower Court. As such I see no merit in the petition.