THE HONOURABLE MR v. A.Viswanathan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE : 04.01.2007CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYANCrl.A.No.848 to 877 of 1998State by The Superintendent Regulated Market, Madurantakam.. Appellant/Complainant in all above Crl.As.vs.1.A.Viswanathan.. Respondent/accused in Crl.A.No.848/1998 2.D.Chittibabu.. Respondent/accused in Crl.A.No.849/1998 3.K.S.Gnanasekaran.. Respondent/accused in Crl.A.No.850/1998 4.K.Arunagiri.. Respondent/accused in Crl.A.No.851/1998 5.E.Mani.. Respondent/accused in Crl.A.No.852/1998 6.E.Subramani.. Respondent/accused in Crl.A.No.853/19987.R.Sasikumar.. Respondent/accused in Crl.A.No.854/19988.Sundaramurthi.. Respondent/accused in Crl.A.No.855/19989.P.Gunasekaran.. Respondent/accused in Crl.A.No.856/1998 10.S.J.Kirubanandam.. Respondent/accused in Crl.A.No.857/1998 11.R.Srinivasan.. Respondent/accused in Crl.A.No.858/1998 12.S.Krishnaraj.. Respondent/accused in Crl.A.No.859/1998 13.S.Karunakaran.. Respondent/accused in Crl.A.No.860/1998 14.G.Sankar.. Respondent/accused in Crl.A.No.861/1998 15.K.Rajamani.. Respondent/accused in Crl.A.No.862/1998 16.P.Ganasekaran.. Respondent/accused in Crl.A.No.863/1998 17.K.Raman.. Respondent/accused in Crl.A.No.864/1998 18.M.Srinivasan.. Respondent/accused in Crl.A.No.865/1998 19.A.Ganesa Chettiar.. Respondent/accused in Crl.A.No.866/1998 20.K.S.Senthilvelan.. Respondent/accused in Crl.A.No.867/1998 21.A.Venugopal.. Respondent/accused in Crl.A.No.868/1998 22.A.Kothandaraman.. Respondent/accused in Crl.A.No.869/1998 23.K.Sivakumar.. Respondent/accused in Crl.A.No.870/1998 24.S.Karunakaran.. Respondent/accused in Crl.A.No.871/1998 25.A.Viswanathan.. Respondent/accused in Crl.A.No.872/1998 26.K.Saroja.. Respondent/accused in Crl.A.No.873/1998 27.E.Subramani.. Respondent/accused in Crl.A.No.874/1998 28.M.Srinivasan.. Respondent/accused in Crl.A.No.875/1998 29.M.Bharani.. Respondent/accused in Crl.A.No.876/1998 30.K.Raman.. Respondent/accused in Crl.A.No.877/1998 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Prayer: These criminal appeals have been filed against the judgments,dated 04.02.1998, in C.C.No.303 of 1994 and C.C.Nos.305 to 328 of 1994 andC.C.No.330 to 334 of 1994 respectively on the file of the JudicialMagistrate, Madurantakam.For Appellant : Mr.V.R.Balasubramanian, ( in all Crl.As) Addl. Public Prosecutor. For Respondent : Mrs.P.V.Rajeswari (in all Crl.As)COMMON JUDGMENTThese appeals have been preferred against the judgment inC.C.No.303/1994 and C.C.Nos.305 to 328 of 1994 and C.C.No.330 to 334 of1994 respectively on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Madurantakam.The complaint against the accused in the above said cases were preferredby the Superintendent of regulation sale center, Madurandhagam, underSection 8(8) & (9), 20(1) of the Tamilnadu Agricultural produce marketing(regulation) Act 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and Rules 32(1), (2), 33(1), (4) and under Rule 48(1)(B) of the TamilnaduAgricultural produce marketing (regulation) Rules 1991 (hereinafterreferred to as "the Rules"), against all the accused individually underthe above mentioned calendar cases. 2. All the accused have been charged to the effect that the accusedhave obtained licence for the year 1993-1994 under Section 8(1) of theAct to procure and sell paddy and to indulge in the said business. As perG.O.Ms.No.3147 Agricultural Department, dated 27.12.1972, paddy, as perthe above said Act, was notified as a notified agricultural produce forthe entire Chengalpet District. As per the Section 6(2) of the Act,G.O.Ms.No.4046 dated 03.10.1974 has been issued declaring a part of theland in and around the above said regulatory marketing place as notifiedmarketing place. As per Section 8(8) of the Act, every businessmen whowas given licence under Section 8(1) of the Act, as per the bylaws of themarketing committee has to file form-9 showing the details regardingarticles purchased, articles sold and the balance sheet containing thestatement of accounts, to the head office of the marketing committee on orbefore 10th of every month and the details mentioned in the statement mustbe born with relevant documents and acknowledgment is to be obtained fromthe marketing committee by having submitted the statements as per Section8(8) of the Act and Rule 32(1) of the Rules. As per Section 24(1) ofthe Act and Rules 33(1) of the Rules, for the products sold as shown inthe statement, for the value of Rs.100/- worth of the product sold Rs.1/-is to be remitted with the marketing committee. As per Section 33(4) ofthe Act, within one week from the date of sale the agency shall remit thecharges as mentioned above to the marketing committee. The accused hasfailed to submit the monthly statement as provided under Section 8(9) ofthe Act r/w Rule 32 of the Rules for the period from 01.03.1993 to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

31.05.1993. As per Section 24(1) and Rule 33 so far the accused have notpaid the charges due to the marketing committee inspite of the notice,dated 11.06.1993, issued by the Superintendent of the market regulationcommittee, Madurantagam. The accused have not paid the charges due to themarketing committee. The accused have purposely failed to submit thestatement of accounts and also failed to pay the charges due to themarketing society. Sanction order has been obtained against the accusedas per Section 58(2) of the Act from the Agricultural Marketing Directorauthorising the Superintendent of the marketing regulation committee,Madurantagam, to prosecute the accused under his letter No.27142/93 dated26.11.1993. The Superintendent as complainant filed the complaint againstthe accused under Section 8(8), (9), 20(1) of the Act and Rule 32(1), (2),33(1), (4) of the Rules. 3. According to the complainant the accused are liable to be punishedunder Section 48(1) of the Act. The complaint was taken on file by theJudicial Magistrate after examining the complainant. On appearance of theaccused copies under Section 207 of Cr.P.C, were furnished to the accused.When questioned, the accused in all the above cases pleaded not guilty.4. The Superintendent of the Tamilnadu Agricultural Produce Marketingcommittee, was examined as P.W.1 in all the above cases. According tohim, as per G.O.No.1546 dated 03.10.1974, issued by the TamilnaduAgricultural Department in the year 1987 in the entire ChengalpetDistrict, the paddy was declared as a notified commodity and as perSection 8(1) of the Act, paddy can be sold only after obtaining necessarylicence and as per the said GO, paddy can be sold only by the licenceholder under Section 8(1) of the Act within 16 kms radius from theMadurantagam regulation market committee building. The accused,according to the complainant, have applied for licence for the period1993-1994, but the accused have failed to submit any statement of accountsfor the business transaction for the period from 01.03.1993 to 31.05.1993and also failed to remit Rs.1/- for the commodity value of Rs.100/- soldin the market. 5. Ex.P.1 (in all the above cases) is the application form forlicence for sale of paddy and Ex.P.2(in all the above cases) is the noticeissued by the complainant to the accused. Ex.P.3(in all the above cases)is the final notice issued by the complainant to the accused demanding theaccused to file the statement of accounts and the charges due to themarket committee. Ex.P.4(in all the above cases) is the acknowledgmentfor Ex.B.3(in all the above cases) served on the accused. Ex.P.6 (in allthe above cases) is the register. Ex.P.7 (in all the above cases) is thecircular issued by the Secretary of the Agricultural Department issued toall the licence traders of paddy in their district and Ex.P.8 (in all theabove cases) is the acknowledgment. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

6. When incriminating circumstances were put to the accused underSection 313 of Cr.P.C, the accused have denied their complicity with thecrime. The accused have examined D1 and D2 on their side.D1-Rajendran in his evidence has stated that the accused is having a ricemill and every day he used to get 5 to 10 kgs of paddy from the rice mill.D2-Radhakrishnan, would state that he is having two rice mill atKarungulli and one rice mill at Vallikulam village in Chegalpet Taluk andthat he has submitted relevant records along with his statement ofaccounts. The statement of accounts for the period from 01.11.1995 to31.03.1996 to the rice mill at Vallipuram and that Ex.D.1 is the receiptfor having paid market charges dated 17.5.1996. After going through theavailable evidence the learned Judicial Magistrate after considering thedocumentary and oral evidence has acquitted the accused in all the abovecases holding that the charges levelled against the accused in all theabove cases have not been proved by the complainant beyond any reasonabledoubt. Aggrieved by the findings of the learned Judicial Magistrate,these appeals have been preferred by the state.7. Now the point for determination in these appeals is that whetherthe judgment of the trial Court is biased and perverse requiring anyinterference from this Court in the findings of acquittal against theaccused in all the above mentioned cases?8.The point:-8(a) I have heard Thiru.V.R.Balasubramanian, Additional PublicProsecutor for the appellant-state and Mrs.P.V.Rajeswari for therespondents/accused in all the above cases and considered their rivalsubmissions. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit thatthe trial Court in its reasoning for acquittal of the accused has observedthat under Section 56(1) of the Act, the complaint should be preferredonly in writing, but in these cases the complainant has preferred a type-written complaint. The sanction order under Ex.P.9 (in all the abovecases) has not been issued individually to the accused but under a singlecommon order, sanction for prosecution was issued against all the accused.Licence given to the accused in Form No.3 shows that accused are dealer inpaddy. No action was taken against the licensee dealer/accused by themarketing committee. As per Rule 24(2) of the Rules, the prosecutionagency has to produce the copy of the complaint, but only xerox copy hasbeen produced. Ex.P.2 & 3 were sent to the accused, but those documentsdo not contain serial Nos. Ex.P.9 shows that G.O.Ms.No.3147 dated29.12.1972, but date of GO was wrongly been mentioned as 27.12.1972.Some of the applications do not contain the signature of the accused viz.,Ex.P.1 in C.A.No.848/98, Ex.P.1 in C.A.853/98, Ex.P.1 in C.A.872/98 andEx.P.1 in C.A.874/98.8(b) the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend thatthe above reasoning stated by the trial Court for acquitting the accusedin the above cases are perverse in nature. In support of this contention, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that Ex.P.5-sanction order passed by the Director of the Agricultural Department underSection 58(2) of the Act is not valid because the accused were notsupplied with individual sanction order. Since all the accused are chargedfor the offence under Section 8(8), (9), 20(1) of the Act and under Rule32(1), (2), 33(1)(4) and under Section 48(1) of the Act, there is nonecessity to issue a separate sanction order for each of the accused. Thelearned Additional Public Prosecutor would further contend that Ex.P.5 isinvalid because reference No. and date were missing. But the reference No.and also the date were given in Ex.P.5, but only in the endorsement by theSpecial Officer to the Superintendent the reference No. is missing and onthat ground it cannot be said that Ex.P.5-sanction order is invalid.8(c) The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would furthercontend that even though in Ex.P.1 relating to C.A.Nos.848, 853, 872 and874 of 1998, the accused has not signed in the application form forlicence but their representatives alone have signed. But so far as thispoint is concerned, the person who has signed on behalf of the applicantwas not examined on the side of the complainant to show that only underthe instruction and authorisation of the applicant, he has signed for theapplicant in Ex.P.1-application form. I am of the view that anapplication for licence for dealership of sale of paddy, the applicantalone shall sign in the application form and no one else.8(d) The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would furthercontend that as per Rule 24(2) of the Rules for the application for grantof renewal or duplicate of a licence under this rule shall be accompaniedby a copy of receipt for payment of fee specified in rule 27 and sent tothe market committee through the concerned Head of market and the findingsof the trial Court that only a xerox copy of the receipt for the paymentof licence fee cannot be taken as a copy of receipt for the payment of theprescribed fee, is unsustainable.8(e) I have given deep consideration for the submissions made bythe learned Additional Public Prosecutor. But his submissions cannot beaccepted for the following reasons:- It is the case of the prosecution that the accused haveviolated the provisions contemplated under the licence issued under Ex.P.1application for dealership of paddy in the notified area in ChengalpetDistrict. If there is any violation of licence issued by the accused thenas per Rule 30 of the Rules, Marketing Committee has every right tosuspend or cancel the licence. Rule 30 of the Tamilnadu AgriculturalProduce Marketing regulations Rules 1991 runs as follows:-" The Market committee may, if it is satisfied that alicensee has violated any of the conditions or provisions, ofthe Act, Rules or by-law framed thereunder, suspend or cancelthe licence granted to him by recording the reasons therefor. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Provided that no licence shall be cancelled or suspendedwithout giving an opportunity to the licensee to take hisrepresentation in writing against the proposed cancellation orsuspension of the licence"It is pertinent to note in all the above cases the licence to the abovesaid accused were not at all produced by the complainant. P.W.1 in hisevidence has stated that the complaint has been preferred since theaccused have violated the specifications mentioned in the licence. Butthe licence was not produced by the complainant in all the above cases.The non-examination of the persons who have signed in Ex.P.1 inC.A.Nos.848, 853, 872 and 874 of 1998, is also fatal to the case of thecomplainant in all the above cases to prove whether they are authorisedsignatories of the applicant in Ex.P.1 in all the above cases. The non-production of the licence in the above said cases cuts at the root of thecomplaint preferred in all the above cases. I do not find any illegalityor infirmity in the findings of the learned Judicial Magistrate,Madurantagam in C.C.No.303/1994 and C.C.Nos.305 to 328 of 1994 andC.C.No.330 to 334 of 1994.9. In the result, the appeals are dismissed confirming the judgementsin C.C.No.303 of 1994 and C.C.Nos.305 to 328 of 1994 and C.C.No.330 to334 of 1994, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Madurantakam. Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarssvTo, 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Madurantagam.2.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanchipuram.3.The Superintendent, Regulate Market, Madurantagam4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.Crl.A.No.848 to 877 of 1998 MDR(CO)RVL 09.01.2007