THE HONOURABLE MR v. The Inspector of Police,Food Cell CID, South,Chennai

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE : 04.06.2007CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYANCrl.A.No.835 of 1999Arokkianathan .. Appellantvs.The Inspector of Police,Food Cell CID, South,Chennai... RespondentPrayer: This appeal has been filed under Section 374[3][a] of Cr. P.C.preferred against judgment dated 27.09.1999 made in S.T.C.No.13 of 1992 onthe file of the Special Judge, Special Court for EC Act, Chennai.For Appellant : Mr.T.S.SasikumarFor Respondent : Mr.V.R.Balasubramanian, Additional Public Prosecutor.JUDGMENTThis appeal has been preferred against the judgment in S.T.C.No.13 of1992 on the file of the Special Judge for EC Act cases, Chennai. Theappellant is A2 in the above STC, who has been convicted and sentenced toundergo 3 months RI and a fine of Rs.500/- with default sentence underclause 6(2) and (3) of TNSC (RDCS) order 1982 r/w section 7(1) and (2) ofthe EC Act 1955.2. Admittedly the appellant A2 was the packer of the fair price shopRamco at Peer Palayam Tharga Road, Chennai-19. The specific chargeagainst the accused/Appellant herein (A2) is that he had supplied 548 Kgsof rice, 35.5 kgs of sugar, 200 kgs of wheat, 9 kgs of palm-oil, 200litres of kerosine worth about Rs.2785.65 to the non-ration card holders.Before the trial Court P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.38were marked, after framing charges and also after following theformalities like furnishing copies under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., andQuestioning etc.3. P.W.1 is the Superintendent of the Consumer Protection Departmentof Mylapore Zone in the office of the Assistant Commissioner of Civilsupply. According to him, he along with Co-operative Sub-RegistrarThiru.Swaminathan inspected the ration shop by name Ramco Ration shop, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Beer Payilvan Tharga road, Chennai, wherein A2 was working as a packer andthat his inspection report is Ex.P.1 and during his inspection he couldfind shortage of 548 kgs rice, 35.5 kgs sugar, 200 kgs wheat and 9 kgspalm-oil and 200 litres of kerosine and that without distributing the saidgoods intended to be distributed to the ration card holders the accusedhad distributed to the persons who don't possess ration cards.4. P.W.2, another Superintendent in the office of the AssistantCommissioner of Civil Supply and Consumer protection department, MylaporeZone, would depose that he had examined 10 ration card holders and foundno entries in their ration cards for having distributed the PDS goodsthrough the said Ramco fair price shop at Beer Payilvan Tharga Road,Chennai. Ex.P.6 is the list prepared by him and Ex.P.7 to P.16 are thestatements of the ration card holders. Ex.P.27 is the bill for the supplyof 9 kgs of rice, 10 litres of kerosine to one Narayanan, holder of rationcard No.141353. P.W.2 would specifically state that on examination of thesaid Narayanan he has informed him that the above said ration goods werenot supplied to him under Ex.P.27. Ex.P.28 to Ex.P.36 are the list forthe examination of holders of 9 ration cards. Ex.P.17 is the statement ofThiru.Narayanan.5. P.W.3 is the Investigating Officer, who had registered the caseunder Cr.No.130 of 1991 under clause 6(2) and (3) TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982r/w section 7(1) and (2) of EC Act. Ex.P.37 is the copy of the FIR. Hehas examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and aftercompleting the investigation he has filed the charge sheet against theaccused. 6. When incriminating circumstances were put to the accused, he hasdenied his complicity with the crime. After going through the oral anddocumentary evidence, the learned Trial judge has come to the conclusionthat the charge against the accused has been proved beyond any reasonabledoubt and accordingly convicted and sentenced the accused under the aboveprovisions of law to undergo 3 months RI and a fine of Rs.500/- withdefault sentence. Aggrieved by the findings of the learned Trial Judge,A2 has preferred this appeal.7.Now the point for determination in this appeal is whether thefindings of the learned trial judge is sustainable for the reasons statedin the memorandum of appeal?8. There is no representation for the appellant. Heard the learnedAdditional Public Prosecutor and considered his submissions. 9. The Point:- As correctly admitted by the learned Additional PublicProsecutor the prosecution has not examined before the trial Court even asingle ration card holder who was examined by the Investigating Officer onthe basis of the complaint against the accused. Even though P.W.2 hasproduced Ex.P.7 to 17 statements of 10 ration card holders, according to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the prosecution, they have not received the ration goods from A2, theappellant herein, none of them was examined. The specific charge againstA2 is that he has not distributed the ration goods of rice, sugar, wheat,palm-oil and kerosine to the value of Rs.2785.65 to the non ration cardholders. Not even a single ration card holder, who have received theabove said ration items, was examined before the Trial Court tosubstantiate the allegation that A2/appellant herein had distributed548 kgs rice, 35.5 kgs sugar, 200 kgs wheat, 9 kgs palm-oil and 200 litresof kerosine to the non-ration card holders. Admittedly the appellant isonly a packer and not a bill clerk. The learned Additional PublicProsecutor in all fairness informed the Court that after registration ofthe complaint the accused had paid Rs.2785.65 to the government therebysetting right the loss alleged to have been incurred to the CivilSupplies Department. Only on the basis of the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3,official witnesses, the learned Trial Judge has come to an erroneousconclusion that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyondany reasonable doubt and consequently convicted and sentenced the accused,which in my opinion is liable to the set aside for the reasons that nonon-ration card holder, who is said to have received the ration goods wasexamined to substantiate the contentions of the prosecution. Point isanswered accordingly.10. In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the convicionand sentence awarded by the learned Trial Judge in S.T.C.No.13 of 1992 onthe file of the Special Judge for EC Act Cases, Chennai, and accordinglythe appellant/A2 is acquitted of all charges levelled against him and ishereby set at liberty. Fine amount, if any, paid is to be refunded to theappellant. Bail bonds shall stand cancelled.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.ssv https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To, 1. The Inspector of Police, Food Cell CID, South Chennai.2. The Special Judge, Special Court for EC Act Cases, Chennai.3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.Crl.A.No.835 of 1999MBS[CO]Gp/13.6