High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI
S.Chinnasamy & Another - Appellant
Versus
The Seeds Inspector - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.719 Of 1997
Decided On : 03 December 2004
The Appellants / Accused have preferred this Criminal Appeal against the Conviction and Sentence passed on them by the learned Special Judge for E.C/NDPS Act, Coimbatore dated 09.09.1997 made in S.T.C.No.3 of 1997 for the violations of Clause 3(1), 8(a) and (b) and 18(1) of Seeds (Control) Order, 1983 with reference to clause (a), (h) and (i) of Sub Section 2 of 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 on Three counts and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each on Three counts.
2. First Accused is the Proprietor of Sri Murugan Agro Centre at Aanaikatty situated at Aanaikatty Bus Stop. The Second Accused is the employee under A-1. P.W.1 is the Seed Inspector, Coimbatore. On 15.05.1996, P.W.1 has inspected Sri Murugan Agro Centre of the Accused; inspection could not be conducted on that day since no responsible person was available in the shop on the date. Again on 25.10.1996, P.W.1 inspected the shop of A-1. 2 ¼ Kgs. of Cotton Seeds, 2 Kgs. of Tomato Seeds were found in the Shop, intended for the purpose of sale. The First Accused had not obtained any licence for selling the Seeds under the Seeds (Control) Order. The Price list or Index was not displayed in the Shop. The price of the Seed varieties were also not conspicuously displayed. P.W.1 interalia noted the following violations:-
(1) No valid Licence to run.....Violation of Rule 3(1) the Shop of Seeds Control Order
(2) No particulars regarding....Violation of Rule 8(1) the Price List of Seeds Control Order
(3) Cash / Credit Bill not}.....Violation of Rule 9 properly given to } of Seeds Control Order purchaser }
(4)Non-maintenance of Books}....Violation of Rule 18(1) Accounts and records } of Seeds Control Order relating to his Business}
3. The quantity of Seeds found in the shop was carefully packed and sealed in the presence of the Second Accused and the same was entrusted to him under Ex.P.2. P.W.1 prepared his Inspection Report Ex.P.1 on 25.10.1996 and the Second Accused had affixed his signature to the Inspection Report Ex.P.1 prepared by P.W.1.
4. On 15.11.1996, P.W.1 went along with the Assistant Director (P.W.2) Seed Inspector, Tiruppur and Seed Inspector, Mettupalayam to the shop of the First Accused and at that time, the Accused was found to be selling the Seeds without obtaining Licence under the Seeds Control Order, despite the warning given to him through A-2 on 25.10.1996. P.W.1 seized the Bill Book – Ex.P.6 in the presence of A-1. The First Accused gave Ex.P.4 – Explanation admitting the charge alleged against him. The First Accused being the Proprietor, Second Accused being the Agent of the First Accused were found selling the Seeds without obtaining the valid permit or Licence and violated the Seeds Control Order. On the direction of Superior Officer, P.W.1 filed the Complaint against the Appellants / Accused.
5. To substantiate the Charges against the Accused, in the Trial Court, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined. Exs.P.1 to P.6 were produced. The Accused were questioned under Sec.313 Crl.P.C about the incriminating evidence and circumstances. The case of the First Accused is that he is only a Cement Dealer and that the Seeds were kept in the Shop only for personal use.
6. In consideration of the evidence, learned Special Judge found that the Appellants/Accused are responsible for the aforesaid violations of Seeds Control Order 1983. However, finding that the sale of Seeds to the Public has not been proved by examining any of the purchasers, learned Special Judge acquitted the Appellants / Accused for violation under Clause 9 of the Seeds Control Order 1983. On the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and the explicit admission by A-1 in Ex.P.4, learned Special Judge found the Accused guilty and convicted the Appellants / Accused as aforesaid in Paragraph (1).
7. Aggrieved over the Conviction, the Appellants / Accused have preferred thi
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.