JUDGMENT: This appeal has been filed by one Jesudoss, an employee in the Fair Price Shop at No. 39 in Podanur, run by C.C.M.S at Coimbatore, against the conviction rendered by the Special Judge for Essential Commodities Act, Coimbatore passed in S.T.C. No.1 of 1995 under Sec.7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act read with 6(3) and 14 (l)(a)(c) of Tamil Nadu Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1982.

2. The allegation against the appellant is that on 3.3.1994, the Special Tahsildar, Coimbatore South along with his party visited the fair price shop at No.39 in Podanur run by C.C.M.S and found a shortage of 378 Kgs of Sugar, 1373 kgms of Raw rice and 302 kg of boiled rice, all worth Rs. 10,999. Hence a report was given to the Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies CID, who after investigation filed the chargesheet against the appellant and the Society represented by its Special Officer.

3. The prosecution in order to establish the case against the accused examined P.W.1 to P.W.4 marked Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-10. P.W.1 is the Special Tahsildar, who conducted the inspection and found the shortage. P.W.2 is the clerk attached to the Collector’s office who accompanied P.W.1 and was present at the time of inspection made by the Special Tahsildar. P.W.3 is yet another witness who is also a Special Tahsildar speaks with reference to the handing over of the report given by P.W. 1 to P.W.4. P. W.4 is the concerned Investigation Officer. It may not be necessary for me to go deep into the facts of the case. The prosecution has clearly established that there had been a shortage of the abovesaid commodities in the fair price shop. The same has not been vindicated and moreover, P.W.1 has no axe to grind against the accused to come out with the false case. Therefore, I am of the view that there had been a shortage of the above said commodities as narrated earlier, on the perusal of the records and by the check made in respect of the articles available.

4. The learned Judge after conclusion of the case and after hearing the arguments of the respective parties, found the appellant herein guilty as aforesaid and had acquitted A-2, holding that A-2 was only representing the society and the society as such has not committed any offence. What remains is the conviction of A-1. He has been charged for an offence punishable under Rule 6(3) of Tamilnadu Schedule Commodities Order, 1982. Rule 6(3) reads as follows:

6(3) The authorised dealer shall not supply the scheduled commodities against any family card not registered with him or to non-card holder.

Therefore, the person who is said to be committing an offence under this provision, is only the authorised dealer and not the individual as such. The authorised dealer has been defined as follows:

‘Authorised dealer’ means a dealer, appointed by the Collector in the district other than Madras, and by the Deputy Commissioner of Civil Supplies in Madras city including its belt area and includes the co-operative societies and the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation and such other agencies running fair price shops. But however, by virtue of Rule 14 of the said order, every authorised dealer shall be held responsible for all the acts of commission and omission of his partners, agents, servants and other persons who are allowed to work in the shop. Consequently, A-1 is an employee of the shop and the dealer as such is liable for the commission of the defalcation committed by the appellant herein.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant would argue that without holding the dealer guilty, it is not possible for convicting the individual as such. In other words, he would argue that unless the dealer is prosecuted and the Court comes to a conclusion that the dealer has committed the offence, the employees by themselves cannot be saddled with criminal liability of an offence under Rule 6(3) TNSC Order 1982.

6. The accused in the above case have been charged for violating Rule 6(3) of the sa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document