U SESHACHALAM Vs. GOVT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who retired from State Government service on 28-2-1983, was working as a District Cooperative Officer, Visakhapatnam, during the year 1979. He was placed in additional charge as Managing Director of "'Sri Vijayarama Gajapathi Cooperative Sugars Limited, Bhimasingi" during the period 7-5-79 to 9-10-79. On 4-6-79 the Central Government issued an order under Clause 4 of the Sugar (Control) Order 1966, restricting the disposal of sugar produced under Vacuumpan process except under and in accordance with a direction issued in writing by the Central Government. The order came into effect on 5-6-1979. On 4-6-1979 the Deputy Director, Directorate of Sugar, Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation, Government of India issued an order under Cl. 5 of the Sugar (Control) Order to "Sri Vijay-rama Gajapathi Cooperative Sugars Limited, Bhimasingi" to sell in India in open market 406 tonnes of sugar, subject to three conditions viz , (i) it shall be sold only to licensed sugar dealers in India, or to a nominee of the Government of Bhutan; (ii) there shall be no restriction on the inter state movement of sugar including its movement to Butan and (iii) delivery and despatch of the said quantity shall not commence before 5th June, 1979, and shall be completed by 30th June, 1979 This order was received by the Sugar Factory on 6-6-1979 telegraphically. It received the original order on 8-6-1979. But it sold only 63 tonnes of sugar during the said period. The respondents say that, even though there were several dealers prepared to purchase the remaining quantity as well, it was not sold. According to the respondents the petitioner and one Sri C A N Raju who was incharge of the Sugar sales in the said factory at the relevant time are responsible for violation of the order dated 4-6-1979 issued under Cl. 5 of the Sugar control order, and are therefore, liable to be prosecuted and punished under Sec. 7(1) (a) (ii) and Section 10 (1) and (2) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Since the petitioner and the said CAN Raju were Govt. servants at the relevant time, the Government of Andhra Pradesh has under GO Ms No. 455, dated 25-9-S4 impugned herein accorded sanction under section 197 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, and Section 15-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for the prosecution of the petitioner and the said Sri C A N Raju for the aforesaid offences. Before any prosecution could be launched in pursuance of the said sanction, the petitioner approached this court by way of this writ petition and obtained stav of prosecution.

(2.) Sri Duba Mohan Rao, the learned counsel for the petirioner, raised the following contentions in this writ petition (1) the order dated 4-6-1979 issued under Cl. 5 of the Sugar (Control) Order is ultra vires the powers of the Deputy Director, Directorate of Sugar, Government of India, and is incompetent in law. The said order itself being void and incompetent in law. The said order itself being void and incompetent, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted under Section 7 or Section 10 of the Essential commodities Act. The sanction accorded for such prosecution must, therefore be held to be equally incompetent and meaningless. Strong reliance is placed upon an unreported decision of a learned single judge of the Bombay High Court in Crimmal Application No. 1472 of 1980, dated 10-11-1981. The contention, in short, is that the said order is not warranted by, and is beyond the scope of Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act (ii) that, the petitioner was only in additional charge of the post of Managing Director of the said factory that he was not really incharge of the affaire of the factory and cannot, therefore, be prosecuted and (iii) that according to Rule 9 (3) of the Andhra Pradesh Revised pension rules, 1980 a Criminal prosecution is abatted on the expiry of four years from the date on which the cauae of action, or the event in respect of which the prosecution is sought to be launched, has arisen or taken place, as the case may be.

(3.) Sri N Subba Reddy. the learned Government Pleader disputed the correctness of each of these contentions, and sabmitted that the impugned order is properly issued and that the prosecution was not barred, and cannot be barred by Rule 9 (3) of the Pension Rules.