P RAMU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defence is that he has not prepared those bills, the trial Judge, however found the accused guilty of violating C1. 6 (2) of the order ad sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year. Aggrieved, the appellant has filed this appeal.

(2.) THE trial Judge, no doubt, finds on the evidence of p. Ws. 2 ,6,8,9,11,13,15 , to 19 and 22 that the accused has prepared bogus bills as though he has supplied scheduled commodities for the cards of those witnesses. But, then, it is contended for the appellant by his learned counsel that the accused appellant cannot be proceeded against as he is only a salesman of the fair price shop of Pandian Supermarket at Raja Mills Road , Madurai. A perusal of C1. 6 (2) of the Order shows the authorised dealer with whom the family card is registered shall on production of such card by the holder, make necessary entries in the card and supply the scheduled commodities not exceeding the quantities for which he is eligible and Cl. 14 shows that every authorised dealer shall be held responsible for all the acts of commission and omission of his partners, agents and servants and other persons who are allowed to work in the shop. It is therefore manifest that only the authorised dealer is responsible for the commission and omission of his partners, agents, servants, and other persons who are allowed to work in the shop. In this case, the Supermarket is the authorised dealer. It is also pointed out that in other Orders, namely, Tamil Nadu Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1968, Tamil Nadu Kerosene (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1973, Tamil Nadu Sugar (Regulation of Trade Order, 1981 and Tamilnadu Tea (Registration of Dealer and Declaration of stocks) Order, 1984 the servants are also made liable. But, in this case, under the Tamil Nadu Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of distribution by Card System) Order, 1982 the servants are not specifically made liable and for any act or any commission and omission of the servant, the authorised dealer alone will be held responsible. While so, the proceedings against the salesman alone for violation of C1. 6 (2)of the Order is bad. THE prosecution should have been launched against the authorised dealer, who is the Supermarket, for these reasons, the appeal is allowed, the conviction and the sentence are set aside and the accused is acquitted.