LAWS(MAD)-1988-12-34

RAJAGOPAL Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE MAMBALAM

Decided On December 08, 1988
RAJAGOPAL Appellant
V/S
INSPECTOR OF POLICE MAMBALAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS/accused 2 to 9 are each convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 100 in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days, for the violation of clause 3 of the Cement (Quality Control) Order, 1962 punishable under Sec. 7 (1) (a) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

(2.) THE BRIEF FACTS ARE: (i) P. W. 8, the Inspector of Police, C. S. , C. I. D. , Madras on some special information raided the premises at 5/65, Amman Koil Street, Noombal Village, at 12. 00 noon after giving advance intimation to the Court. During the course of the raid, he found some stone powder, empty gunny and polythene bags, certain bags of standard quality cement stored inside the premises. He seized them under house search list Ex. P8 attested by P. Ws. 3 and 4. Then P. W. 8 went to Maduravoil Police Station and registered a case in Crime No. 260 of 1983 under Sec. 420 I. P. C. , against the accused. He also caused photographs of the premises to be taken by P. W. 7. Ex. P6 series are photographs. P. W. 8 took samples of stone power quality cement and adulterated cement and sent them for the purpose of analysis to P. W. 6, analyst. (ii) On analysis, the samples marked as B. 1 and D. 1 were found to be adulterated. Consequently, P. W. 8, issued Test Certificate Ex. P5 to this effect. (iii) After completing the formalities of the investigation, P. W. 8 laid a report under Sec. 173 Crl. P. C. , against the appellants and others for violation of clause 3 of the Cement Quality Control order, 1962, punishable under Sec. 7 (1) (a) (ii), of the Essential Commodities act.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for appellants would contend that the materials available on record are so scanty as is not possible for this court to fasten or mulct criminal liability upon the appellants as had been done by the Court below, the consequence of which is that, the appellants herein are liable to be acquitted by giving them the benefit of reasonable doubt.