Judgment : This appeal by the State is against the acquittal of the respondents herein by the Special Judge, under the Essential Commodities Act, Salem in S.T.C.No. 24 of 1985 finding that the respondents are not guilty of the offences under Sec. 6(3) read with Sec. 7(1)(a)(ii) and 3(1)(2) read with Sec. 7(1)(a) of Tamil Nadu Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1982, Essential Commodities Act. 2. The prosecution case is that the first respondent accused is a multipurpose cooperative society in Muluvi Village in Yercaud in which the second respondent accused was the salesman prior to 3. 1983 and the third respondent was a salesman from 3. 1983 to 8. 1983. When the Special Tahsildar of Hying Squad P.W.11 inspected this multi-purpose co-operative society, he found the sale of the commodities to persons who are not card-holders and whose cards were not registered in this society and that the stocks and prices were not exhibited in the society on the date of the inspection. 3. Prosecution examined the card holders P.Ws. 1 to 9 who have deposed that they purchased only certain commodities and sometimes they were not supplied with full quantity on their demand. P.W.10, the Special Deputy Tahsildar has spoken mat the 7 card numbers found in the bill book maintained by the first accused society, were not registered with this society, but in some other society. P.W.11, the Special Tahsildar of Flying Squad, has spoken that the inspection was conducted by him on 8. 1983 and 8. 1983 and the irregularities were found by him. P.W.12 is the Accountant of the society and P.W.13 is the Investigating Officer. 4. The learned Special Judge, who tried this case, has acquitted the respondents herein on the ground that the prosecution has not established, the charges against the accused/respondents. 5. Even though notices have been served on the respondents 1 and 2, they have not entered appearance and the third respondent alone is represented by his counsel. 6. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) contends that the court below has not properly applied its mind with reference to the requirements of the sections of the Essential Commodities Act and the documentary evidence produced before the lower court was not properly appreciated and the acquittal of the respondent is contrary to law. 6. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) contends that the court below has not properly applied its mind with reference to the requirements of the sections of the Essential Commodities Act and the documentary evidence produced before the lower court was not properly appreciated and the acquittal of the respondent is contrary to law. The learned counsel for the third respondent argues that the court below has taken the view that as the persons alleged to have purchased the goods in this society without the ration cards, have not been examined, the sale of the commodities by the respondents 1 and 2 to the non-card holders or to those who have not registered the card in this society, is not proved and therefore there is no error in the findings of the court below. But the documents and the evidence of P.W.10 and P.W.11 clearly establish that the second respondent accused had sold the commodities to the persons, whose cards were not registered with this society. He refers to the evidence of P.W.10, whose report is Ex.P-1. P.W.10 is the Deputy Special Tahsildar, who has verified the numbers of the cards furnished by P.W.11. P.W.11 has given the list of seven cards found entered in the bill books for the supply of the commodities. P.W.10, after referring to the registers maintained by the society, has found that the family card numbers 110990, 110271, 110876, 110877, 110652, 110665 and 110846 were not registered with the first respondent co-operative society in Muluvi Village, and in Ex.P-1, his report, he has given the details of the societies in which these cards were registered. It is pertinent to mention that when P.W.10 was in box, no question was put to him with reference to the correctness of the statement and his report Ex.P-1. Therefore, it has to be accepted that the evidence of P.W.10 is true and nothing but true, which has to be accepted without any hesitation. From the evidence of P.W.10 and his report Ex.P-1, the seven cards mentioned above were not registered with the first respondent society, but with some other societies and the names of these societies also are given in Ex.P-1 report. From the evidence of P.W.10 and his report Ex.P-1, the seven cards mentioned above were not registered with the first respondent society, but with some other societies and the names of these societies also are given in Ex.P-1 report. Under Sec. 6(3) of Tamil Nadu Scheduled Commodities Order, 1982, no person shall obtain any scheduled commodities on family cards unless he registers himself with an authorised dealer and the authorised dealer shall not supply the scheduled commodities against any family card not registered with him or to non-card holders. Now, on a perusal of the M.O.2 bill book, we are able to see that for these seven cards, kerosene, maida and rava had been supplied by the second respondent who was the salesman at that time. Ex.P-4 Annexure I is a report in detail prepared by P.W.1. The particulars given in Ex.P-4, Annexure I tallies with the bill numbers and the card numbers give in M.O. 2 bill book. Therefore, the bill book M.O. 2, the report Ex.P-4 Annexure I and Ex.P-1 establish the fact that the second respondent salesman had sold the commodities to certain card holders who had not registered their cards with the first respondent society. Therefore, when the document prepared by the second respondent itself proves the contravention of the provisions, there is no need for examining the purchasers of the commodities, who owned the cards mentioned above. Some of the card-holders examined before the court below have stated that they were not supplied with all the commodities and only a very few items were given. But the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) argued that entries have been made in the cards of these witnesses that all the commodities were supplied and that also would prove that without supplying the commodities to these card holders, they were supplied to some third parties, who must be non-card holders. Sometimes these witnesses may not be accurate in their memory, that too after some years, as to what were the commodities they purchased. Therefore, for the reason that these witnesses have stated that the entire commodities were not supplied to them, we cannot take it that some of the commodities were sold to non-card holders. Sometimes these witnesses may not be accurate in their memory, that too after some years, as to what were the commodities they purchased. Therefore, for the reason that these witnesses have stated that the entire commodities were not supplied to them, we cannot take it that some of the commodities were sold to non-card holders. However, the description of the numbers of the cards in M.O. 2 bill book, the report Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-4 Annexure I are sufficient to conclude that the second respondent-salesman has sold the commodities to the card-holders, whose cards were not registered with this society. Therefore, certainly this would fall under Sec. 6(3)of the Scheduled Commodities Order, 1982 punishable under Sec. 7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act. 7. Under Sec. 10 of the said Act, if the person contravening the order is a company, the company also is liable to be punished. Therefore, in this case, as the second respondent was the salesman, who made the entries in M.O. 2 bill book and the first respondent is the company, both of them are liable to be punished under Sec. 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act. 8. Then coming to the third respondent/third accused, he is charged only for the offence under Sec. 3(1)(2) of the Essential Commodities Act for the failure to display the stocks and prices. On the date of the inspection, that is on 8. 1983, he was the salesman in the leave vacancy and under Sec. 3 of Tamil Nadu Essential Commodities (Display of Stock and Prices and Maintenance of Accounts) Order, 1977, every dealer shall display conspicuously in the place of his business, the stocks of the essential commodity held by him and he shall also display a list of all prices showing the cost price and sale price of such essential commodity. It is not the case of the third respondent that he exhibited the stock list and the price list at the time of the inspection. No cross-examination was made to P.W.11 suggesting that the list was exhibited. On the other hand, it appears to have been contended before the Special Judge that the explanation under Sec. 12 of the said Act which gives exemption to the establishments of the Food Corporation of India run under the Food Corporation Act of 1964 and the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation. On the other hand, it appears to have been contended before the Special Judge that the explanation under Sec. 12 of the said Act which gives exemption to the establishments of the Food Corporation of India run under the Food Corporation Act of 1964 and the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation. The learned Special Judge has observed that there is nothing in this Essential Commodities (Display of Stock and Prices and Maintenance of Accounts) Order, 1977 to the effect that it is enforceable against the co-operative society also and the definition of the word ‘dealer’ does not include specifically the cooperative society and therefore Sec. 3 is not enforceable against the co-operative society. I feel that the approach of the learned Special Judge is not correct. When Sec. 12 specifically exempts only the two categories of establishments, one run by the Food Corporation of India and the other by the Civil Supplies Corporation, it goes without saying that all other establishments run by any other body, are not exempted and they come within the purview of the Act. Under Sec. 2(g) of the Essential Commodities Order, a dealer is defined as a person engaged in the business of purchase, movements, sale, supply, distribution or storage of essential commodities and certain categories of those persons like an importer, a wholesaler, a retailer etc. also are given, for example. A person engaged in the business of purchase, sale and distribution of the essential commodities is a dealer as per the definition and therefore even a society like the first respondent herein, which is engaged in the sale and distribution of essential commodities clearly falls within the definition ‘dealer’ and I am unable to understand how the learned Special Judge entertained the doubt as to the applicability of this word ‘dealer’ to co-operative society. Undoubtedly it applies and as there is no exemption under Sec. 12, the first respondent society cannot escape from the operation of this order. Therefore, the learned Special Judge is not right in. concluding that the said Act does not cover the first respondent. As I have found above that the first respondent is not exempted, it follows that the non-exhibition of the stock list and price list attracts the punishment under Sec. 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Act. 9. Therefore, both the first respondent and the third respondent are liable to be punished under Sec. 7 of the Act. As I have found above that the first respondent is not exempted, it follows that the non-exhibition of the stock list and price list attracts the punishment under Sec. 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Act. 9. Therefore, both the first respondent and the third respondent are liable to be punished under Sec. 7 of the Act. Under Sec. 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Act, the minimum punishment prescribed is three months imprisonment. Therefore, I feel that the sentence of three months imprisonment on the respondents 2 and 3 each is sufficient to meet the ends of justice. As the first respondent is the society, a fine of Rs. 250 for each of the offences will be the adequate punishment. 10. However, the learned Government Advocate represents that even though the respondents 2 and 3 stand convicted, under G.O.Ms.No. 180, dated 21. 1989, the sentences on the respondents 2 and 3 stand remitted. Even though the conviction is awarded today, it dates back to the date of the judgment of the Special Judge, which is 2. 1987. As it is conceded by the learned Government Advocate that the respondents 2 and 3 are entitled to the benefits of the above said G.O., they cannot be arrested or detained. 11. In the the result, setting aside the order of acquittal of the learned Special Judge, the respondents 1 and 2 are convicted and sentenced under Sec. 6(3) read with Sec. 7 (1)(a)(ii) of the Act to pay a fine of Rs. 250 by the first respondent, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months by the second respondent, under Sec. 3 read with under Sec. 7(1)(a)(ii) to pay a fine of Rs. 250 by the first respondent and to undergo rigorous imprisonment by the respondent for three months. However, in view of the abovementioned G.O., the respondents need not be arrested.