Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1644 (MAD)

S. Chinnasamy & Another v. The Seeds Inspector

2004-12-03

R.BANUMATHI

body2004
Judgment :- The Appellants / Accused have preferred this Criminal Appeal against the Conviction and Sentence passed on them by the learned Special Judge for E.C/NDPS Act, Coimbatore dated 09.09.1997 made in S.T.C.No.3 of 1997 for the violations of Clause 3(1), 8(a) and (b) and 18(1) of Seeds (Control) Order, 1983 with reference to clause (a), (h) and (i) of Sub Section 2 of Section 3 punishable under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act 1955. The Special Judge sentenced the Appellants / Accused to undergo Three months Simple Imprisonment on Three counts and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each on Three counts. 2. First Accused is the Proprietor of Sri Murugan Agro Centre at Aanaikatty situated at Aanaikatty Bus Stop. The Second Accused is the employee under A-1. P.W.1 is the Seed Inspector, Coimbatore. On 15.05.1996, P.W.1 has inspected Sri Murugan Agro Centre of the Accused; inspection could not be conducted on that day since no responsible person was available in the shop on the date. Again on 25.10.1996, P.W.1 inspected the shop of A-1. 2 ¼ Kgs. of Cotton Seeds, 2 Kgs. of Tomato Seeds were found in the Shop, intended for the purpose of sale. The First Accused had not obtained any licence for selling the Seeds under the Seeds (Control) Order. The Price list or Index was not displayed in the Shop. The price of the Seed varieties were also not conspicuously displayed. P.W.1 interalia noted the following violations:- (1) No valid Licence to run.....Violation of Rule 3(1) the Shop of Seeds Control Order (2) No particulars regarding....Violation of Rule 8(1) the Price List of Seeds Control Order (3) Cash / Credit Bill not}.....Violation of Rule 9 properly given to } of Seeds Control Order purchaser } (4)Non-maintenance of Books}....Violation of Rule 18(1) Accounts and records } of Seeds Control Order relating to his Business} 3. The quantity of Seeds found in the shop was carefully packed and sealed in the presence of the Second Accused and the same was entrusted to him under Ex.P.2. P.W.1 prepared his Inspection Report Ex.P.1 on 25.10.1996 and the Second Accused had affixed his signature to the Inspection Report Ex.P.1 prepared by P.W.1. 4. The quantity of Seeds found in the shop was carefully packed and sealed in the presence of the Second Accused and the same was entrusted to him under Ex.P.2. P.W.1 prepared his Inspection Report Ex.P.1 on 25.10.1996 and the Second Accused had affixed his signature to the Inspection Report Ex.P.1 prepared by P.W.1. 4. On 15.11.1996, P.W.1 went along with the Assistant Director (P.W.2) Seed Inspector, Tiruppur and Seed Inspector, Mettupalayam to the shop of the First Accused and at that time, the Accused was found to be selling the Seeds without obtaining Licence under the Seeds Control Order, despite the warning given to him through A-2 on 25.10.1996. P.W.1 seized the Bill Book – Ex.P.6 in the presence of A-1. The First Accused gave Ex.P.4 – Explanation admitting the charge alleged against him. The First Accused being the Proprietor, Second Accused being the Agent of the First Accused were found selling the Seeds without obtaining the valid permit or Licence and violated the Seeds Control Order. On the direction of Superior Officer, P.W.1 filed the Complaint against the Appellants / Accused. 5. To substantiate the Charges against the Accused, in the Trial Court, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined. Exs.P.1 to P.6 were produced. The Accused were questioned under Sec.313 Crl.P.C about the incriminating evidence and circumstances. The case of the First Accused is that he is only a Cement Dealer and that the Seeds were kept in the Shop only for personal use. 6. In consideration of the evidence, learned Special Judge found that the Appellants/Accused are responsible for the aforesaid violations of Seeds Control Order 1983. However, finding that the sale of Seeds to the Public has not been proved by examining any of the purchasers, learned Special Judge acquitted the Appellants / Accused for violation under Clause 9 of the Seeds Control Order 1983. On the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and the explicit admission by A-1 in Ex.P.4, learned Special Judge found the Accused guilty and convicted the Appellants / Accused as aforesaid in Paragraph (1). 7. Aggrieved over the Conviction, the Appellants / Accused have preferred this Appeal. The main contention urged by the Appellants / Accused is that the First Accused has been dealing with only in Cement and not in Seeds. 7. Aggrieved over the Conviction, the Appellants / Accused have preferred this Appeal. The main contention urged by the Appellants / Accused is that the First Accused has been dealing with only in Cement and not in Seeds. It is the further contention that the Accused had kept Cotton Seeds and Tomato Seeds for their personal use and not intended to sale to the Public. Such inference is sought to be drawn by the small quantity kept in the Shop. The lapses in the Complaint on the non-mention of the alleged Inspection on 15.05.1996 and 15.11.1996 in the Complaint is mainly urged contending that it raises serious doubts on the Prosecution case. Contending that no documents have been produced showing that A-2 has been employed under A-1 and that signature of A-2 has been obtained in the blank form to create Ex.P.2 and the same was not properly appreciated by the Trial Court, learned Counsel prayed to set aside the Conviction and Sentence. 8. Reiterating the findings of the Trial Court, Judgment and evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, learned Government Advocate Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan has drawn attention of the Court to Exs.P.2 and P.3 signed by A-2. Laying emphasis upon Ex.P.4, in which A-1 admitted that he had been carrying on business for about 1 ½ years and his application for Licence has been returned for want of correct address, learned Government Advocate has submitted that in view of Exs.P.2 and P.4 coupled with the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, the violations under the Seeds Control Order is well proved. Learned Government Advocate has further submitted that the findings and the reasonings for the conviction are well balanced on the evidence and materials on record warranting no interference. 9. In consideration of submissions of both sides, Judgment of the Trial Court and other materials on record, the point that arises for consideration in this Appeal is : “Whether the Prosecution has proved violations of Seeds Control Order and whether the Conviction suffers from any infirmity warranting interference?”. 10. On 25.10.1996, P.W.1-Seed Inspector has visited Sri Murugan Agro Centre at Aanaikatti Bus Stop owned by the First Accused. The Second Accused – employee/salesman was available in the shop. On inspection, P.W.1 found that 2 ½ Kgs. Cotton Seeds and 2 Kgs. of Tomato Seeds. 10. On 25.10.1996, P.W.1-Seed Inspector has visited Sri Murugan Agro Centre at Aanaikatti Bus Stop owned by the First Accused. The Second Accused – employee/salesman was available in the shop. On inspection, P.W.1 found that 2 ½ Kgs. Cotton Seeds and 2 Kgs. of Tomato Seeds. Seeds were sealed and handed over to A-2 with an undertaking not to sell the same until further orders. In clear acknowledgement of the entrustment of Seeds, A-2 has written Ex.P.2. For better appreciation of the contentious points urged, it would be appropriate to refer to the contents of Ex.P.2, which runs as follows:- Tomato - 2 Kg. Sd/- Soundararajan, 25.10.1996 Sri Murugan Agro Centre, Main Road, Aanaikatti(Post) Pin 641 108" 11. Visit of P.W.1 to the Shop of the Accused on 25.10.1996 and his Inspection Report – Ex.P.1 is seriously assailed contending that A-2 is not proved to be employed by A-1. It is the further contention that Signature of A-2 has been obtained in blank forms and the documents were created. This contention does not merit acceptance. By perusal of Ex.P.2, it is amply made clear that Ex.P.2 is written by A-2 in a small Ruled Note Book Paper. That Ex.P.2 is in the own hand writing of A-2 and his signature is being found in Ex.P.2 and the nature of writing are proved to be contemporaneous. The correctness of Ex.P.2 selling and entrustment of its Seeds and Inspection of the Shop by First Accused on 25.10.1996 can hardly be doubted. 12. The Shop was firstly inspected on 15.05.1996. P.W.1 could not conduct the Inspection on that day since no responsible person was available in the Shop. Inspection on 25.10.1996 is a continuation of the earlier Inspection on 15.05.1996. There is no mention about the visit of the Shop of the First Accused by P.W.1 on 15.05.1996 either in the Complaint or in Ex.P.1. Though in the Complaint specific reference has not been made about the Inspection, it clearly mentions about repeated instructions and reminders given to the Accused since 15.05.1996 for rectification. Such averment sufficiently brings home the visit of the Shop by P.W.1 on 15.05.1996. Likewise, the Complaint does not mention about the Inspection of the Shop on 15.11.1996. Though in the Complaint specific reference has not been made about the Inspection, it clearly mentions about repeated instructions and reminders given to the Accused since 15.05.1996 for rectification. Such averment sufficiently brings home the visit of the Shop by P.W.1 on 15.05.1996. Likewise, the Complaint does not mention about the Inspection of the Shop on 15.11.1996. Though the documents particularly Ex.P.6 is originated on 15.11.1996, non mention of the date – 15.11.1996 in the Complaint is only a minor omission, which does not in any way affect the substance of the Complaint or the evidence of P.W.1. It is stated that this is the First Case in the entire State of Tamil Nadu, which has been laid for the alleged violations of Seeds Control Order 1983 by the Seed Inspector. In that view of the matter, much weight can not be attached to the minor omissions in the Complaint. Taking note of the fact that it is the first case, learned Special Judge rightly found that the omission of the dates of Inspection on 15.05.1996 and 15.11.1996 would not fatally affect the Complainant’s case and the same is to be endorsed with. 13. No valid License to run the Shop ....Violation of Rule 3(1) of Seeds Control Order 1983:- For carrying on the business of selling, the First Accused ought to have obtained License under the Seeds Control Order 1983. As per Rule 3(1) of the Seeds Control Order, no person shall carry on the business of selling, exporting or importing seeds at any place except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of Licence granted to him under this order. The First Accused is running Sri Murugan Agro Centre. He has been selling the Seeds for about 1 ½ years prior to the Inspection on 25.10.1996. Admittedly, he has no Licence to sell the Seeds. Under Ex.P.4, A-1 has clearly admitted that he has been selling the Seeds for about 1 ½ years, and that his application for obtaining Licence had been returned for want of correct address and that he could not pursue the same because of his ailments. Admittedly, he has no Licence to sell the Seeds. Under Ex.P.4, A-1 has clearly admitted that he has been selling the Seeds for about 1 ½ years, and that his application for obtaining Licence had been returned for want of correct address and that he could not pursue the same because of his ailments. For better appreciation of the Admission of A-1, we may usefully refer to Ex.P.4, which is as follows:- “Dt.15.11.1996 Sd/- Chinnasamy, Sri Murugan Agro Centre, Main Road, Aanaikatti(Post) Pin 641 108" Thus, there had been sale of Seeds in Sri Muruga Agro Centre for a long period prior to the Inspection is evidenced by Ex.P.4 and also by Ex.P.6 Bill Book. A-1 - the owner of the Shop and A-2 – Employee are proved to have violated Rule 3(1) of the Seeds Control Order. 14. No Particulars regarding the Price List ....... Violation of Rule 8(1) of Seeds Control Order 1983:- As per Rule 8 Dealer is to display stock and Price List. Every dealer of Seeds shall display in his place of Business :- (a) the opening and closing stocks, on daily basis, of different seeds held by him; (b) a list indicating prices or rates of different seeds. P.Ws. 1 and 2 have clearly spoken about the non-displaying of Stocks and Price List at the time of Inspection on 25.10.1996. On the other hand, when the Shop was inspected on 15.05.1996 by P.W.1, sale of Seeds was displayed in the Board. No reasons are forthcoming for not displaying the Price List, opening and closing stocks on daily basis on different Seeds held by them. The violation under Rule 8(1) Seeds Control Order is also clearly proved. 15. Non-Maintenance of Books, Accounts and Records relating to the Business .... Violation of Rule 18(1) Seeds Control Order:- Rule 18 deals with Maintenance of Records and submissions of Returns etc. As per Rule 18(1), every dealer shall maintain such books, accounts and records relating to his business as may be directed by the State Government and as per Rule 18(2), every dealer shall submit return relating to his business for the preceding month in Form “C” to the licensing authority by the 5th day of every month. As per Rule 18(1), every dealer shall maintain such books, accounts and records relating to his business as may be directed by the State Government and as per Rule 18(2), every dealer shall submit return relating to his business for the preceding month in Form “C” to the licensing authority by the 5th day of every month. Since A-1 has not obtained any License, obviously A-1 would not have maintained the Books, Accounts and the Records relating to the business nor he would have submitted Form “C” as required under Rule 18(II). On the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and on the admission of the First Accused in Ex.P.4, learned Special Judge rightly found the Appellants guilty for the violation under Rule 18(1) of Seeds Control Order. 16. The contradiction regarding the non-mention of the dates, prior and succeeding Inspection in the Complaint cannot substantially affect the Prosecution case on the violations noted by P.W.1. Section 14 of the Essential Commodities Act deals with the burden of Proof where a person is prosecuted for contravening any order. Section 3 which prohibits from doing any act or being in possession of a thing without lawful authority or without a permit, License or other document. When violation of Control Order is levelled against the Accused as per Sec.14, the burden of proving that he has such authority, permit, License or other document shall be on the Accused. The common law doctrine that the prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt has no application to statutory offences and the burden lies heavily on the Accused to prove that he held a valid permit entitling him to sell the Seeds. This Section lays a heavy burden on the Accused to explain that his possession of the Seeds was lawful. This burden can be discharged either by examining independent witnesses on his own behalf or by eliciting favourable answers from prosecution witnesses in cross-examination. No such evidence is forthcoming showing that the Accused has such authority / permit and License to sell the Seeds. 17. The defence plea is that the First Accused is a Cement Dealer and that the small quantity of Cotton Seeds and Tomato Seeds were kept in the Shop for personal use. No such evidence is forthcoming showing that the Accused has such authority / permit and License to sell the Seeds. 17. The defence plea is that the First Accused is a Cement Dealer and that the small quantity of Cotton Seeds and Tomato Seeds were kept in the Shop for personal use. According to the Accused, the Accused and his Father-in-Law are owning the lands and the Seeds were kept in the Shop only for being used in their own field. No documents are produced showing the Survey Number or the extent of the land owned by the First Accused or his Father-in-law. Likewise, the reasons for keeping the 2 ¼ Kgs. of Cotton Seeds and 2 Kgs. of Tomato Seeds in the Shop is also not forthcoming. This defence is falsified by Ex.P.6 Bill Books showing Sale of Seeds to various persons considering for a long period. Learned Special Judge has acquitted the Accused for the violation under Rule 9 only on the ground of non-mention of Purchasers. Ex.P.6 – Bill Book clearly proves the actual sale of Seeds from Sri Murugan Agro Centre. When Sale of Seeds from the Shop of the Accused is reasonably proved by the production of Ex.P.6, the contention of the Accused that the same had been kept in the Shop only for personal use has no merits. 18. It is also relevant to refer to Section 10-C of the Essential Commodities Act, which raises the presumption of culpable mental state. As per Section 10-C of the Act, in any prosecution for any offence under Essential Commodities Act which requires a culpable mental state on the part of the accused, the Court shall presume the existence of such mental state but it shall be a defence for the Accused to prove the fact that he had no such mental state with respect to the act charged as an offence in that prosecution. The Court has to bear in mind the statutory presumption of culpable mental act envisaged under Section 10-C of the Essential Commodities Act, and sub-section (2) thereof casts a burden on the Accused to prove such defence beyond reasonable doubt and not merely its existence established by a preponderance of probabilities. In the light of specific admission in Ex.P.4 and the absence of any explanation from the Accused, the presumption drawn under Section 10-C stands unrebutted. 19. 2 ¼ Kgs. In the light of specific admission in Ex.P.4 and the absence of any explanation from the Accused, the presumption drawn under Section 10-C stands unrebutted. 19. 2 ¼ Kgs. of Cotton Seeds and 2 Kgs. of Tomato Seeds were found in the Shop of the First Accused. This is said to be the first case registered in the State of Tamil Nadu for the violation under the Seeds Control Order. Onbehalf of the Appellants / Accused, it is contended that since it is the first case in the entire State, indulgence could be shown to the Appellants / Accused in view of the small quantity, which they were found to be in possession. Acceptance of this contention would set a wrong precedent. 20. It is with the definite purpose of bringing out Quality Production, Seeds Control Order 1983 has been brought into force. Reporting of violation cannot be viewed lightly, lest it would have serious repercussion on the quality of the yield, affecting the public at large. It is not as if the Appellants / Accused were found in possession of only small quantity of Seeds. From Ex.P.6-Bill Book, it is seen that huge quantity of Seeds have been repeatedly sold to the Public in carrying on the business for more than 1 ½ years. It is also made clear that despite repeated directions from 15.05.1996, the violations have not been rectified. No indulgence could be shown to the Appellants / Accused on the ground that this is the first case for the alleged violation of Seeds Control Order. 21. The reasonings and the findings of the learned Special Judge are in conformity with the evidence and materials available on record. The learned Special judge has rightly found that the non-mention of the dates in the Complaint would not in any way fatally affect the Prosecution case. Learned Special Judge has rightly convicted the Appellants / Accused. Taking note of the quantity and other circumstances, the learned Special Judge has imposed only Sentence of Imprisonment of Three Months and fine of Rs.1000/- on each of three counts, which is also quite reasonable in the circumstances of the case. This Court finds no reason warranting interference in the Judgment of the Trial Court. 22. Taking note of the quantity and other circumstances, the learned Special Judge has imposed only Sentence of Imprisonment of Three Months and fine of Rs.1000/- on each of three counts, which is also quite reasonable in the circumstances of the case. This Court finds no reason warranting interference in the Judgment of the Trial Court. 22. C.A.No.719 of 1997:- Therefore, the Judgment (dated 09.09.1997) passed in S.T.C.No.3 of 1997 by the Special Judge for Essential Commodities / NDPS Act, Coimbatore for the violations of Clause 3(1), 8(a) and (b) and 18(1) of Seeds (Control) Order, 1983 with reference to clause (a), (h) and (i) of Sub Section 2 of Section 3 punishable under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act 1955 and the sentence of Three months Simple Imprisonment on Three counts and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each on Three counts are confirmed and this Appeal is dismissed. 23. Since the Appellants/Accused are on bail, the Trial Court is directed to secure the custody of the Appellants/Accused and make them to undergo remaining period of sentence.