S. Ramalingam vs Tarani Sugar Mills and Others

M. Karpagavinayagam, J.—S. Ramalingam, the Petitioner herein, filed a private complaint against the Respondents requesting the Court to

take cognizance for the offence under Clause 3(3) of the Sugarcane Control Order. 1966 read with Section 7(1)(a) of the Essential Commodities

Act, 1955. The trial Court, instead of taking the case on file, forwarded the complaint for investigation by the Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies

C.I.D. u/s 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure In pursuance of the said order, the investigation was carried on. Ultimately, the police filed a final

report to the effect that it is a case of civil nature and therefore, the complainant could seek his remedy through the civil Court. Accepting the said

report, the Special Court returned the complaint and closed the matter observing that no cognizance can be taken and as such, the complaint is not

maintainable. The said order is the subject matter of challenge before this Court in this revision.

I heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and also issued notice to the Additional Public Prosecutor to assist this Court with reference to the

question raised in this case. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also made his submission.

According to the Petitioner/complainant, the Petitioner being a sugarcane grower supplied sugarcane to the accused valued about Rs. 5,51,777-

94 as per the agreed price at the rate of Rs. 65 8-80 per M.T. and in pursuance of the agreement, the Petitioner/complainant received only Rs.

5,13,765-05 and the balance of Rs. 33,313/- was not paid despite repeated demands through notices and as such, the Respondents/accused

contravened Clause 3(3) of the Sugarcane Control Order 1966 and they are liable to be punished u/s 7(i)(a) of the Essential Commodities Act.

The typed-set of papers filed by the counsel for the Petitioner would disclose that the complaint was filed in November, 2000 and the same was

returned for clarification and at last, with reference to the maintainability, the arguments were heard by the Special Court on 25.5.2001 and

28.5.2001. Thereafter, the Special Court forwarded the complaint for investigation u/s 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure by the Inspector of

Police, Civil Supplies C.I.D. accordingly, a final report was filed stating that the averment in the complaint is of a civil nature. Accepting the said

final report of the police, the Special Court by order dated 31.8.2001 closed the matter as it is of a civil nature.

On hearing the counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, I am of the opinion that the proceedings, which arise out

of complaint in question, cannot be closed merely on the basis of the final report of the Police Officer stating that the complaint is purely of a civil

nature.

The Court, which is competent to take cognizance of the offence, is empowered to conduct enquiry u/s 202 Code of Criminal Procedure by

examining the complainant and the witnesses and dismiss the complaint u/s 203 Code of Criminal Procedure if no prima facie case is made out. On

the other hand, if the Court feels that it requires investigation by the police, the said complaint could be referred for investigation u/s 156(3) Code

of Criminal Procedure and a final order could be passed after receipt of the police report.

In this case, instead of conducting enquiry by taking sworn statement from the complainant in order to find out whether prima facie case is made

out or not, the complaint was referred for investigation by the police u/s 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure It may be that the Court is

empowered to do the same. But, it does not mean that the report of the police shall be accepted blindly.

Admittedly, after receipt of the final report, the complainant was not heard. Furthermore, the Special Court, which is competent to take

cognizance of the offence under the Essential Commodities Act, can allow the complainant and the witnesses to give sworn statement and then find

out whether the ingredients of the offence mentioned in the complaint are made out in those statements.

When the complainant would allege in the complaint the non-payment of the balance sale price, the Court has to find out as to whether the non-

payment of the same within the stipulated period would attract the offence alleged.

Clause 2(i) of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 would define the ""producer of sugar"". Clause 3(1) would refer about the fixation of

minimum price of sugarcane to be paid by the producer of sugar to the sugarcane grower as per the notification issued by the Central Government.

Clause 3(2) would indicate that no person shall sell sugarcane to a producer of sugar and such producer shall purchase sugarcane at a price lower

than that fixed under the notification. Clause 3(3) would indicate that the producer of sugar shall pay the sale price as fixed under the notification or

the agreed price, which is not lower than the said fixed price, within 14 days from the date of delivery of the sugarcane. Under Clause 3(4), if such

a payment was not made within the stipulated period, the purchaser shall be deemed to have contravened die provisions of Clause 3 of Sugarcane

(Control) Order, 1966.

The reading of these provisions would make it clear that the Court, while entertaining the complaint on the basis of the averment in the

complaint or the swum statement to be recorded by the Magistrate, has to see as to whether any minimum price has been fixed by way of

notification and whether the agreed price between the parties is above the said minimum price notified and whether that agreed price has not been

paid after supply within the stipulated period so as to attract Clause 3(3) of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966. This could be done only after

taking swum statements from the complainant and the witnesses.

Mere filing of die final report by the police stating that the complainant could be directed to take civil remedy would not suffice to hold that the

complaint is of a civil nature. Therefore, the order impugned is set aside.

The Special Court is directed to take the swum statement of the complainant and the witnesses and conduct enquiry in accordance with

Sections 200 and 202 Code of Criminal Procedure and find out whether prima facie case is made out attracting Clause 3(3) of the Sugarcane

(Control) Order, 1966. If the ingredients of the said provision are absent, it is open to the Special Court to dismiss the complaint u/s 203 Code of

Criminal Procedure On the other hand, if the complainant satisfied the Special Court by producing the materials which would attract the definitions

as per Clauses 2(i), 3(1), 3(2) 3(3) and 3(4)of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, then the Court concerned would be empowered u/s 204 Code of

Criminal Procedure to issue summons to the accused party, who are actually responsible for the commission of the said offence.

With this observation, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the matter is remitted back to the trial Court to pass orders in accordance

with law after giving opportunity to the complainant as indicated above.