Back
1985 Supreme(AP) 86
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : B.P.JEEVAN REDDY
U.Seshachalam - Appellant
Versus
Government Of A.P., food and Agriculture (Civil supplies) Department - Respondent
W.P.No.16861/1984
Decided On : 02-25-85
Advocates Appeared :
Mr. D. Mohan Rao
Headnote:ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT, 1955, Secs 3, 7(1)(a)(ii), 10(1) & (2) and 15-A and Sugar (Control) Order, 1966, Clauses 4, 5 and 6 and A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980, Rule 9(3) and Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 197(1) - Orders issued by the Central Government under Clause 4 of the Sugar (Control) Order, 1966 restricting the disposal of sugar except under and in accordance with a direction issued by Central Government are relatable to Section 3(1) of the Act - Not invalid - Person incharge of the Managing Director of the Sugar Factory is liable to be prosecuted under Section 7 and 10 of the Act for violation of Cl.(5) of Sugar [Control] Order - Prosecution of a retired State Government servant for violating the Sugar Control Order - Not barred under Rule 9(3) of the Pension Rules.
Held: The Sugar (Control) Order neither purports to be, nor is, there any reason for confining its operation only to Sec. 3(2)(f) of the Essential Commodities Act. It must firstly be related to sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Act and that itself would be sufficient to sustain its validity without cutting down or curtailing the plain meaning, effect and operation of its provisions. Even otherwise, the said order can be justified with reference to Clauses (d) and (e) and sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act. May be, is also referable to clauses (f); but there is no reason for restricting its acope and operation with reference to clause (f). Clause (d) empowers the Central Government to make an order regulating by licenses, permits or otherwise (which includes orders issued from time to time) the distribution and disposal of any essential commodity. Thus the orders issued by the Central Government as also the Sugar (Control) Order whereunder the said orders were issued are all relatable to sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act and are, therefore good and proper.
The petitioner was placed incharge of the Office of the Managing Director of the Sugar Factory. It is the Managing Director who is in control of the affairs of a Cooperative Sugar Factory. He can be prosecuted under Secs. 7 and 10 of the Act for violating of the Government orders because he must be presumed to be in the knowledge about the affairs of the sale and manufacture of the concerned commodity. The judicial proceedings referred to in sub-rule 3 of Rule 9 of the A.P. Pension Rules, cannot take in a Criminal Prosecution, which has to be launched by the prosecuting authority, whether Police, C.B.I., or any other specialised agency. Moreover, the judicial proceedings contemplated by sub-rule (3) is one designed to find out whether the employee was guilty of grave misconduct or negligence in discharge of his official duty with a view to decide whether his pension should be reduced and nut a judicial proceeding for violation of the laws of the land. Therefore, the proposed prosecution cannot be said to be barred by Rule 9 [3] of the pension Rules.
W.P. Dismissed.
( 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 prosecuti
