Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Tirunelveli vs Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies, CID, Tirunelveli

Bellie, J.

Of the six accused in the case the first accused, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Tiruneveli, which alone has been convicted and

sentenced, has filed this appeal.

The case of the prosecution is that false entries have been made in the Bill Books as though rice has been supplied against the ration cards and

then, eight bags of rice were stealthily transported from the Fair Price Shop in a cart during night and some of the villagers on coming to know of

this stopped the cart. It appears A5 Salesman was the person who was transporting and A6 was the driver and owner of the bullock cart, and A5

immediately ran away. The villagers gave information to P.W.1 Tahsildar and he arrived at the scene at 4.00 P.M. on the next day. After recording

statements from the villagers he gave a complaint to the police, Ex.P.1, against A5 and A6.

Charge sheet was filed not only against A5 and A6 but also as against other accused A1 to A4, A1 being as stated above Tamil Nadu Civil

Supplies Corporation, A2. Its Assistant Manager, A3, its Area Supervisor and A4, godown keeper. The charge was under Cl.6(2) of the Tamil

Nadu Schedule Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1982 read with Ss. 3, 7 and 10 of the Essential Commodities

Act.

All the accused denied the charge. As aforementioned A1 Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Tirunelveli alone has been convicted and all

other accused have been acquitted.

Now in the appeal Mr. M. Karpagavinayagam, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-first accused would submit that the conviction of A1

is illegal and the facts do not at all warrant any conviction.

On carefully considering the matter I am inclined to agree with the learned counsel. Now, the facts stated above show that it was A5, salesman

who was transporting the eight bags of rice. The evidence further shows that it was he who made the false entries in the bills books as if rice had

been distributed to the Card Holders. These facts would clearly show that he is guilty of some offences.

The question is how A1 is guilty of any offence. The main charge is violation of Cl.6(2) of the Tamil Nadu Scheduled Commodities (Regulation

of Distribution by Card System) Order, hereinafter referred to as the Tamil Nadu Schedule Commodities Order. This Cl.6(2) reads thus:-

6.(2) the authorised dealer with whom the family card is registered shall on production of such card by the holder, make necessary entries in the

card and supply the scheduled commodities not exceeding the quantities for which he is eligible.

It is not in dispute that A1 is an authorised dealer. I do not understand how Cl.6(2) is violated at all by A1, from the facts of the prosecution case

stated above. This clause is to the effect that if a family card which is registered with the authorised dealer is produced by the card holder the

authorised dealer shall after making necessary entries in the card supply the scheduled commodities (not exceeding the quantity for which he is

eligible). It is not understandable how A1 has violated this when A5 has made false entries in the bills as if rice has been supplied to card holders.

Therefore, clearly no offence under Cl.6(2) is committed at all.

Even if any offence is committed under this clause, again, it is difficult to understand how Al, the authorised dealer can be said to have

committed an offence. In this connection it appears the Court below has referred to Cl.14(1)(a). This clause is as follows:

Further condition to be observed by the authorised retail shops - (1) Every authorised dealer shall --

(a) 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.;

b)....

This means, for any commission and omission of the partners, agents, servants and other persons who are allowed to work in the fair price shop

vis-a-vis the Regulation Order, the authorised dealer also is responsible. Certainly, the authorised dealer cannot be made responsible for any

intentional offence committed by its employees. Therefore, Cl.14(1)(a) is inapplicable to the facts of the case.

The lower court has also referred to S. 10, of the Essential Commodities Act. This Section relates to offences by companies. It is not known

what offence, if it can be said to be a company, A1 has committed. A reading of the Section would show that if a company has committed an

offence contravening an order made under S. 3, then, every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of and was

responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the

contravention and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. From the facts stated above, clearly it was A5 the salesman,

who alone has committed an offence which may be theft or breach of trust or making false entries, and by no stretch of imagination or reasoning, it

can be said that, A1 the authorised dealer has committed any offence. As per this S. 10 , if the company has committed an offence, then the

persons who were responsible for the conduct of the company also can be deemed to be guilty and not vice-versa. Therefore to hold that from the

facts of the case, A1 the authorised dealer has committed an offence is not at all acceptable..

Hence clearly, the conviction of A1 is illegal and unsustainable. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed, and the conviction of A1 and

sentence imposed on it are set aside. The fine amount if had been paid shall be refunded.