R. Soundararajan vs Seed Inspector, Coimbatore

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2006 Supreme(SC) 930

2006(7) Supreme 632
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Madras High Court)
S.B. Sinha & Dalveer Bhandari, JJ.
R. Soundararajan
(Criminal Appeal No. 1521 of 2005)
S. Chinnasamy
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1522 of 2005)—Appellants
versus
Seed Inspector, Coimbatore & Anr.—Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1521-1522 of 2005
Decided on 29-9-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : P. Anand Padmanabhan and Pramod Dayal, Advocate.
For the Respondents : V.G. Pragasam, Advocate.

Headnote:Essential Commodities Act, 1955—Sections 3(2)(i) and 7(1)(a)(ii)—Seeds (Control) Order, 1983—Clauses 3(1), 8(a) & (b) and 18(1)—Appellants were found transacting business in pesticides, fertilizers & seeds and on inspection 2¼ kgs. of cotton seeds and 2 kgs. of tomato seeds were found in shop—Appellant had not obtained any licence for selling seeds and neither price list nor index was displayed in shop—Trial Court arrived at finding that appellant No. 2 as agent of appellant No. 1 was found selling seeds without valid licence—Court found appellants guilty and sentenced each appellant three months imprisonment and fine—High Court upheld conviction and sentence—Appeal—Prayer for reduction in sentence not opposed by State—In totality of facts and circumstances, ends of justice to be met if sentence of appellants was reduced to period already undergone which was about one month.
       Held : The learned counsel appearing for the State fairly submitted that the State will have no objection in case while maintaining the conviction, the sentence of the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone.(Para 22)
       The learned counsel for the State submitted that this concession is made while keeping the following factors in view:
       (i)the appellant no.2 was a young boy of 17 years of age at the time of the commission of the offence;
       (ii)a small quantity of seeds was seized; and
       (iii)this was the first case recorded in the State of Tamil Nadu for violation under the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983.
       In view of this submission of the learned counsel for the State, we do not deem it appropriate to adjudicate and give our findings on the various issues raised by the counsel for the parties.(Para 23)
       We have carefully perused the entire evidence and documents on record and heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. On consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, particularly in view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the State, in our considered view, the ends of justice would be met, if the sentence of the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them.(Para 24)

JUDGMENT

Dalveer Bhandari, J.—These criminal appeals emanate from the judgment of the High Court of Judicature of Madras dated 3.12.2004 by which the learned Single Judge of the High Court has upheld the judgment of the Special Judge (E.C./N.D.P.S. Act), Coimbatore dated 9.9.1997 for violation of clauses 3(1), 8(a) and (b) and 18(1) of Seeds (Control) Order, 1983 with reference to clauses (a), (h) and (i) of sub-section 2 of the Section 3 punishable under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The Special Judge sentenced the appellants/accused to undergo three months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each on three counts.

2. Brief facts which are imperative to dispose of these appeals are recapitulated as under:-

The Seed Inspector, Coimbatore, PW1, went for inspection of the shop of appellant no.1 on 15.5.1996. According to him, the shop was open but there was no responsible person available in the shop, therefore, the Seed Inspector could not conduct the inspection on that day though he waited there for about an hour.

3. The Seed Inspector, on 25.10.1996 again had gone to the shop of appellant no. 1, S. Chinnasamy, but appellant no.1 was not there and appellant no. 2, R. Soundarajan, his agent, was running the business of the shop at that time. According to the statement of PW 1, the appellants were transacting business in pesticides, fertilizers and seeds. The Seed Inspector on inspection found 2¼ kgs. of cotton seeds and 2 kgs. of tomato seeds in the shop. Appellant no. 1 had not obtained any licence for selling the seeds. According to the Seed Inspector P.W.1, neither the price list nor the index was displayed in the shop. Particulars of the seed varieties were also not displayed. No books, accounts or records were maintained. The above quantity of seeds found in the shop was packed and sealed in the presence of appellant no. 2, R. Soundarajan and the same was entrusted to him with the instructions to the proprietor to give his explanation on or before 30.10.1996. The Inspection Report was prepared and on the same appellant no. 2, R. Soundarajan had appended his signature. The Bill Book - Exb.6 was also seized. The Bill book revealed that appellant no.1 had transacted business in seeds without any valid permit. The Seed Inspector prepared the complaint on the instructions of his superior officer, PW2, Thiru Isac Jesudas.

4. The relevant part of the complaint reads as under:-

"The complainant is a notified Seed Inspector, appointed under Section 12 and empowered to act as per section 13 of the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983. His jurisdiction extends over the entire Revenue Taluks of Coimbatore North and Coimbatore South. He is a Public Servant by virtue of Notification No. S. O. 763 (e) DT. 27.9.87 issued by the Govt. of India and is empowered to institute prosecution.

The accused (1) is a dealer of seeds doing seed business at the address mentioned above, which comes under the jurisdiction of this Court. The accused (2) is an authorized sales person of the accused (1).

The Seed Inspector, Coimbatore on receipt of reliable information visited the premises of the accused on 25.10.1996. At that time, the accused (2) was present on the spot. He was looking after the business at the time of visit.

During the course of inspection, the following offences were noticed.

(1)Seed business had been carried out without obtaining a valid license.

(2)Stock / price list not maintained.

(3)Records not maintained.

The above defects have not been rectified even after repeated instructions and reminders since 15.5.96. The explanations offered by the accused are not satisfactory.

The above acts of the accused contravene section 3, section (8) (a), section (9) and Section 18(1) of the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983. Hence the accused is punishable under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

Hence, it is prayed that this Honorable Court must be pleased to take up this case on file, summon them and re

Click Here to Read the rest of this document