STATE Vs. S RADHAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is against acquittal.

(2.) The brief facts are, the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation is having number of branches throughout the State for sale of provisions. One such branch is located at Distillery Road, Nagarcoil. The accused appellant was in charge of this branch. There was also a watchman by name, Vijayakrishnan in this branch. On 3-2-1983 at 10-45 a.m. the Assistant Inspector of Labour II circle, Nagarcoil, namely P.W. 1 and his party made an inspection of the business premises of this branch. At that time, the accused was not present in the shop and was stated to be on leave on that day. The watchman Vinayakrishnan alone was present. The inspection revealed that one 500 ml. measure namely M.O. 1, was not verified and stamped subsequent to the quarter of the year 1980-81. It was seized by P.W. 1, under Ex. P.1, mahazar. Subsequently, P.W. 1 issued show cause notice to the accused as well as the watchman Vijayakrishnan directing them as to why action should not be taken for violation of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Weights and Measures Enforcement Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The accused as well as Vijayakrishnan gave reply under Ex.P.3. They also appealed to the Controller of Weights and Measures, praying that they might be excused this time. The Controller of Weights and Measures passed the order under Ex. P. 4 rejecting the appeal. In the meantime P.W. 1 was transferred and in his place P.W. 2 was. posted. The Commissioner of Labour directed P.W. 2 to prosecute the accused alone as he was the person responsible for verification and stamping of the weights and measures available in the shop. As per the instructions P.W. 2 laid the complaint against the accused alone before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagarcoil for the violation of the provisions of S.11 and R.10(2) punishable under S.25 of the Act.

(3.) The accused when questioned regarding the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence, denied his complicity in the crime. He chose to examine a defence witness on his side. In fact, he got himself examined as D.W. 1, in the case. He had deposed in his evidence that he was on leave on the date in question and the M.O. 1, seized from the shop was not at all in use. He would also add that he was the person responsible for verifying and stamping the weights and measures in the shop in accordance with the provisions under the Act.