Back
2026 Supreme(Mad) 1505
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
P. DHANABAL, J.
S.Vadivel - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Tamilnadu Rep by its, The Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies Crime Investigation Department – Respondent
CRL OP(MD). No.18299 of 2023, Crl.MP(MD)No.14481 & 14483 of 2023
Decided On : 30-04-2026
For the Petitioner:M/s.Shanmugaraja Sethupathi D, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr.B.Nambi Selvan, Additional Public Prosecutor
Criminal proceedings against salesman alone are liable to be quashed when the dealer is not arraigned and facts show no mens rea or material linking accused to crime.
Headnote:The Tamil Nadu Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1982 (Sections 6(2) and 14(1)(a)) read with Section 7(i)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act was examined. The petitioner, a kerosene bunk salesman, supplied kerosene to suspended ration card holders, allegedly causing a loss of Rs.3,58,488/-. The Court found that the petitioner had already satisfied the loss amount and was absolved in prior disciplinary proceedings, and that the facts did not disclose any mens rea or criminal conduct. The Court held that the facts do not make out any offence under Sections 6(2) and 14(1)(a) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 r/w 7(i)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act. The Court framed the issue as whether the charge-sheet disclosed any offence against the petitioner. The ratio decidendi is that the proceedings against a salesman alone for violation of the Order are bad when the dealer is not also arraigned, and that the absence of material showing the petitioner acted contra to the provisions of these Acts, along with the persuasive value of the prior disciplinary finding absolving the petitioner, render the criminal proceedings an abuse of process. The Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.168 of 2021 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Tiruchirappalli, are quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner supplied kerosene to suspended cards causing loss. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments citing case laws and opposing quash plea. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. no mens rea, no criminal offence disclosed. (Para 6 , 7) |
ORDER :
P. DHANABAL, J.
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.168/2021 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Tiruchirappalli.
2. According to the petitioner, he was working as salesman in Tiruchirappalli District Amaravathi Consumer Co-operative Wholesale Stores Limited. During the relevant period, the petitioner was working as Salesman in the Kerosene Bunk run by the above Stores which was supplying Kerosene to the Family Card Holders on ration basis. While so, the petitioner alleged to have supplied Kerosene to the cards which have been already suspended by the Authority. Since the petitioner has supplied Kerosene to the suspended card holders, he caused loss to the Stores. For the above said allegations, the case has been registered for the offences under Sections 6(2) and 14(1)(a) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 r/w 7(i)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act. In fact, the alleged offences would not attract in this case. As per the Charge Sheet, does not make out any offences under Sections 6(2) and 14(1)(a) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 r/w 7(i)(a)(ii) of the . Even the entire allegations formed in the FIR is true, no criminal offence is made out. If at all, the action of the petitioner in supplying kerosene to the suspended card would amount to dereliction of duty, and no allegations of misappropriation are attributed against the petitioner and no criminal breach of trust or misappropriation. Further, after the allegations leveled against the petitioner, the petitioner had deposited the entire amount as per the direction of this Court in Crl.OP(MD)No.7717 of 2015 dated 23.04.2015 while granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Already, the petitioner was issued a charge memo on 27.07.2015 for the same set of allegations and hence, disciplinary proceeding was initiated as against him. Subsequently, a domestic enquiry was conducted, and he was absolved from the charges. Hence, no criminal offence would attract and thereby, filed this petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was working as salesman in Tiruchirappalli District Amaravathi Consumer Cooperative Wholesale Stores Limited. Whileso, the District Revenue Officer inspected the Stores on 29.10.2014 and 30.10.2014 and submitted a report indicating some irregularities. On the basis of the said report, the second respondent lodged a complaint before the first respondent. On the basis of the complaint, the first respondent registered a case in Crime No.109 of 2015 as against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 6(2) and 14(1)(a) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 r/w 7(i)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act. The petitioner has no knowledge about the suspension of the cards and already for the same cards, other ration items were supplied. Based on the same, the petitioner also supplied the kerosene. Further, the petitioner already deposited the loss amount of Rs.3,58,488/- as per the direction of this Court, and there is no criminal intention to commit any offence and even assuming that the petitioner supplied the kerosene without perusing the records, it amounts to dereliction of duty and does not constitute the offence. Therefore, the pending charge sheet as against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 6(2) and 14(1)(a) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 r/w 7(i)(a)(ii) of the is clear abuse of process of law and hence, the same is liable to be quashed.
4. To support his contention, he relied upon the following judgments:-
1. G.Thilagan Vs. The Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies CID, Pollachi, Coimbatore District in Crl.OP.No.1297 of 2015.
2. P.Ramu in Crl.A.No.274 of 1984 reported in 1987 1 MLJ(Crl.) 330.
3. Jesudoss Vs. State represented by the Inspectro of pOlice, CS-CID, Coi
