JUDGMENT: C.A.No. 125 of 1996: This appeal is preferred by A-2-Salesman of Uthamapuram Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank. Appel-lant/A-2 was convicted for. the violations of Clause 6(2) of the Tamil Nadu Schedule Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1982 read with Sec.7(l)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act by the Special Court for Essential Commodities Act, Madurai by the judgment dated 31.3.1995 in S.T.C.No.17 of 1995. 2.C.A.No. 170 of 1996: This appeal is preferred by A-l/Uthamapuram Primary Agricultural Cooperative Bank. Appellant/A-1 was convicted for the violations of Clause 14(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Schedule Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1982 read with Sec.7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act by the Special Court for Essential Commodities Act, Madurai by the judgment dated 31.3.95 in S.T.C.No. 17 of 1995. 3. The details of the charges framed and findings of the trial Court is as under: Accused Charge Gist of offence Finding A-1-Bank C1.14(1)(a) of T.N.S.C.Order read with Sec. 7(1)(a)(ii) of E.C. Act Liability of A-1-Bank for acts of commission and omission by its servant-A-2 Guilty Fine of Rs. 3000 imposed A-2-Salesman C1.6(3) of T.N.S.C. Order read with Sec7(1)(a)(ii) Sale of Schedule Commodity to non-card holders Guilty R.I. for 2 years Fine Rs. 3000 imposed 4. A-1/Uthamapuram Primary Agricultural Cooperative Bank (hereinafter referred to as ‘A-1-Bank’) is a distributor of Essential Commodities and Authorised Dealer of the Fair Price Shop in Uthamapuram area. To that Fair Price Shop 3000 Family Cards are attached. A-2 was working as Salesman in A-1-Bank from November, 1994. Essential Commodities supplied by the Government are being sold from this Fair Price Shop to Uthamapuram area. 5. P.W.1-Poundoss was the Civil Supplies Tahsildar of Uthamapalayam Taluk. P.W.1 learnt about the sale of Essential Commodities by A-2-Salesman on preparation of Bogus Bills. On 13.7.1995-2.00 p.m., P.W.1-Poundoss along with the Revenue Inspectors Pounraj and Subburaj inspected the shop. Sales Register and Bill Books for the period from January, 1995 to June, 1995 were checked. As per Rules, for one Family Card, Essential Commodities are to be supplied only once in a month. For elders-One Unit-4 Kgs of rice to be sold; for children-Half Unit-2 Kgs rice to be sold. On verification of the Registers, P.W.1 noticed that for many Family Cards Bogus Bills were prepared for the second time. No entry was made in the B-Register. For elders-One Unit-4 Kgs of rice to be sold; for children-Half Unit-2 Kgs rice to be sold. On verification of the Registers, P.W.1 noticed that for many Family Cards Bogus Bills were prepared for the second time. No entry was made in the B-Register. By so preparing false bills, Scheduled Rice was diverted and sold in the outside market. For 302 Family Cards such false bills were prepared and total quantity of 3,622 Kgs of rice was found to have been so sold in the Open Market and an amount of Rs.13,892.50 was misappropriated. Upon verification of the Registers and preparing extract of 302 Cards, for which Bogus Bills were prepared, P.W.1 sent Ex.P-14-Complaint to the Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies C.I.D. on21.7.1995. Along with Ex.P-14, statement of the accused Ex.P-15 and Extract of 302 instances for which Bogus Bills were prepared was also enclosed. 6.Registration of case: Upon receipt of Ex.P-14, P.W.2-Inspector of Police registered the case in Crime No.93/95 under Secs.6(2), (3) of the Tamil Nadu Schedule Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1982 read with Sec.7(l)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act under Ex.P-16-F.I.R. 7.Seizure: P.W.2 has seized B-Registers and Bill Books. Ex.P-17-Certificate was obtained from A-1-Bank that A-2 was working as Salesman in A-1-Bank from January, 1995 to June, 1995. Since A-1-Society failed to exercise effective control over the acts of its Salesman-A-2, A-1-Society was charged for violation of Clause 14(l)(a) the Tamil Nadu Schedule Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1982. 8. To substantiate the charges against the accused, in the trial Court, P.W.1-Tahsildar and P.W.2-Investigating Officer were examined. Exs.P-1 to P-17 were marked. A-1-Bank was represented by its Secretary-Rajendran. Both A-1-Bank and A-2-Salesman were questioned about the evidence and incriminating circumstances under Sec.313, Crl.P.C. A-1-Bank denied the same. A-2 Salesman stated that 1300 Card Holders are attached to that Fair Price Shop and that he alone was to manage the whole sale and also making the entries in the relevant registers. Further according to A-2, at the time of distribution of the commodities, normally the card holders do not form queue. In the jumbling of the crowd omissions occur to write in the family card and the consumers make purchase for the second time and in that way second bill happened to be prepared and that there was no intention to defraud in preparation of those bills. In the jumbling of the crowd omissions occur to write in the family card and the consumers make purchase for the second time and in that way second bill happened to be prepared and that there was no intention to defraud in preparation of those bills. A-2 denies any sale in the outside market. 9. Upon consideration of evidence and contention of A-2-Salesman, the learned Special Judge found A-2 guilty finding that the prosecution has proved that A-2 prepared false bills and sold the rice in the open market for earning profit. Trial Court rejected the defence that due to crowd the number was omitted to be mentioned in the card and the cardholder taking advantage of the same make purchase for the second time. In its view that explanation of the accused is probable only if the false bills relate to few cards and not in cases of huge number of 302 cards. Trial Court mainly referred to the evidence of P.W. 1 and that it is corroborated by the entries in the Bill Book. In its view, non-examination of the card holders would not affect the prosecution case. Considering the number of cards, the learned Special Judge inferred malicious intention on the part of A-2 to defraud by selling the rice in the open market. As against A-1-Society the trial Court found that A-1-Society failed to exercise control over the Salesman and found A-1-Society guilty, as noted above. 10.C.A.No.170 of 1996: Aggrieved over the conviction A-1-Bank has preferred this appeal. A-1-Bank is stated as ‘Uthamapuram Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank’. In the cause title, it was not stated as to who is representing the Society. Main contention urged by A-1 -Bank is that A-1-Bank is not represented properly. Conviction of A-1-Bank cannot be sustained. Taking me through the evidence of P.W. 1, the learned counsel for A-1-Bank contended that P.W.1’s evidence is silent as to how A-1-Bank failed to exercise effective control over A-2-Salesman. In the absence of any definite allegations against A-1-Bank, it is contended that A-1-Bank cannot be held vicariously liable for the acts of its Salesman. 11.C.A.No.125 of 1996: Assailing the findings of the trial Court, the learned counsel for A-2 contended that the trial Court erred in basing the conviction upon the alleged admission of A-2. In the absence of any definite allegations against A-1-Bank, it is contended that A-1-Bank cannot be held vicariously liable for the acts of its Salesman. 11.C.A.No.125 of 1996: Assailing the findings of the trial Court, the learned counsel for A-2 contended that the trial Court erred in basing the conviction upon the alleged admission of A-2. Main point urged is that non-examination of 302 Card Holders and non-examination of Ponraj and Subburaj who accompanied P.W.1 at the time of inspection is fatal to the prosecution case. Attacking the approach of the trial Court, the learned counsel contended that the prosecution cannot take advantage of the weakness in the defence and the trial Court erred in basing the conviction mainly on the alleged admission of the accused during questioning under Sec.313, Crl.P.C. 12. Upon careful analysis of the evidence and materials on record, judgment of the trial Court and submissions of both sides, the following points arise for determination in this appeal: (i) Whether false bills are proved to have been prepared by A-2 with intention to defraud and in selling the rice in the Open Market? (ii) Whether A-2 is right in contending that due to jumbling of the crowd he could not make proper entries in the register and double entries in the bill book for the same card? (iii) Whether the trial Court was right in convicting A-1 and A-2 for violation of Clause 14(1)(a) and 6(3) of the Tamil Nadu Schedule Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1982 read with Sec.7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act? 13. ‘Authorised Dealer’ means a dealer, appointed by the Collector in the district other than Madras, and by the Deputy Commissioner of Civil Supplies in Madras City including its belt area and includes the Co-operative Societies and the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation and such other agencies running fair price shops. Uthamapuram Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank is the Authorised Dealer for distribution of Essential Commodities at Uthamapuram area. 1300 Family Cards are attached to this Fair Price Shop of which A-1-Bank is the Authorised Dealer. There is no denying that A-2 was a Salesman in the Fair Price Shop No. 1. 14. A-1-Bank issues loan to the agriculture, fertilizers, pesticide, agricultural loan for raising seeds and agricultural apparatus. A Special Officer is appointed for A-1-Bank. 1300 Family Cards are attached to this Fair Price Shop of which A-1-Bank is the Authorised Dealer. There is no denying that A-2 was a Salesman in the Fair Price Shop No. 1. 14. A-1-Bank issues loan to the agriculture, fertilizers, pesticide, agricultural loan for raising seeds and agricultural apparatus. A Special Officer is appointed for A-1-Bank. Bank is the Authorised Distributor for four Fair Price Shops including Uthamapuram Fair Price Shop. Uthamapuram Fair Price Shop is at Swamy Vivekanandhar Street. Sec.l3-A of the Tamil Nadu Schedule Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order is the provision for issuing of Authorisation. An authorisation in Form B, may be issued to each fair price shop by the District Supply Officer, authorising it to supply essential commodities, on family cards, subject to the condition specified therein. While A-1-Bank is appointed as Authorised Dealer, an authorisation in Form-B is issued to A-1-Bank, as contemplated under Clause 13-A. Supply of Essential Commodities is regularised under Sec.6. Having appointed as Authorised Distributor for supply of Essential Commodities, A-1-Bank is bound to follow the Rules and Regulations. Thus A-1-Bank-Dealer and A-2-Salesman are bound to comply with the directions issued in this behalf by the Government from time to time. 15. For each one Family Card Scheduled Commodities could be sold only once in a month. Quantity for each one card rice to be sold: One Unit ... 4 Kg rice Two Units ... 8 Kg rice More than Two Units ... 12 Kg rice The above regulations for the supply of Schedule Commodities is spoken by P.W.1. That for a Family Card the above quantity of rice to be sold monthly once is the direction issued by the Government cannot be disputed by the accused. Nor any contentious point was urged on the Rules and Regulations before the trial Court. Now the evidence of P.W.1 is assailed on the above Rules and Regulations contending that his evidence is unsupported by the relevant Government Order. Had it been raised during the trial, the prosecution would have produced the relevant Government Order in the trial Court. Having not raised the point before the trial Court, it is not open to the appellants to attack the evidence of P.W. 1 on the ground that Rules and Regulations spoken by him is unsupported by documents. 16.Violation of Sec. 6 by A-2-Salesman: A-1-Bank is the Authorised Dealer. Having not raised the point before the trial Court, it is not open to the appellants to attack the evidence of P.W. 1 on the ground that Rules and Regulations spoken by him is unsupported by documents. 16.Violation of Sec. 6 by A-2-Salesman: A-1-Bank is the Authorised Dealer. A-2 is the Salesman. Both are bound to observe the Regulations/ Directions issued by the Government in this behalf from time time. For better understanding of the nature of violations, it is necessary to refer to Secs.6(2) and 6(3) of the Scheduled Commodities Order: Sec.6: Supply of Scheduled Commodities:... “(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. (3) The authorised dealer shall not supply the scheduled commodities against any family card not registered with him or to non-card holder.” Thus under Clause 6(3) Authorised Dealer shall not supply the scheduled commodities against any Family Card not registered with the Fair Price Shop. 17. At the time of inspection on 13.7.1995 P.W.1 has seized: (i) 14 Bill Books from 10.12.1994 to 1.7.1995; (ii) Two B-Registers-from January, 1995 to June, 1995; (iii) Two Sales Register Extracts-from 4.4.1994 to 13.7.1995. Upon verification of the Registers, P.W. 1-Tahsildar had noted that for 302 Family Cards false bills were prepared as if rice was sold for the same Family Cards twice in a month for which subsequent Bogus Bills were prepared. No corresponding Entry was made in the B-Reg-ister. By so preparing the false bills, A-2-Sales-man had totally diverted 3,622 Kgs of rice and misappropriated an amount of Rs.13,892.50. In his evidence, P.W. 1 has spoken about the modus operandi of A-2 in preparation of such false bills. 18. On careful consideration of registers and the extract of 302 Family Cards filed along with Ex.P-14-Complaint, it is clear for 302 Family Cards bogus bills were prepared in the same month. Modus operandi of A-2 is that for the same Family Card after supplying the rice, for the supply of rice in the month, regular bill was prepared. 18. On careful consideration of registers and the extract of 302 Family Cards filed along with Ex.P-14-Complaint, it is clear for 302 Family Cards bogus bills were prepared in the same month. Modus operandi of A-2 is that for the same Family Card after supplying the rice, for the supply of rice in the month, regular bill was prepared. Then for the same Family Card either on the same date or on a later date, another false bill was prepared showing as if 12 Units was sold on that Family Card and thus scheduled rice was diverted to the open market. 19. In the trial Court, for sample two instances of Family Cards showing how the bogus bills were prepared was demonstrated by P.W. 1 referring to the relevant entries. For better appreciation of the modus operandi in preparing the false bills, we may tabulise those entries and bills relating to two cards: Family Card Number: 13/427726 BillNo. Entryin B-Register Bill Book Entryin BillBook 910/6.1.1995 saleof 12 Kg rice Ex.P-5 inEx.P-1 Register Ex.P-6 from10.12.1994 to 10.1.1995 Ex.P-7 Onthe same date for the same family card entry showing sale of 12 Kg of rice wasprepared as: BillNo. Entryin B-Register Bill Book Entry in Bill Book 991/6.1.1995 saleof 12 Kg of rice Noentry Ex.P-6Bill Book Entry in Bill Book 984/6.1.1995 -------- sale of 12 Kg rice Ex.P-9 inEx.P-2 Register Ex.P-10-Bill For the same family card bill entry showing sale of 12 Kg of rice was prepared as: Bill No. Entry in B-Register Bill Book Entry in Bill Book B.80/19.1.1995 No entry Ex.P-11-Bill Book ------------ 14.1.1995 to 8.2.1995 Ex.P-12 Bill Thus it is clear that for the same Family Card either on that date or on different dates bills were prepared as if there was supply of 12 Units on that card against that false bill. 20.Two-fold violations are committed by A-2: (i) Violation of the Rule that there could be supply of Scheduled Rice for one card only once in a month; (ii) Preparing false bills and thereby diverting the scheduled rice. On the above violations committed by A-2, evidence of P.W.I is well strengthened by the relevant entries in the Register. 21. At the inspection (i) Bills books; (ii) B-Registers; (iii) Sales Extract for 302 instances were verified. Upon verification of the registers, extract was prepared. The details of which was annexed to Ex.P-15-Statement of the accused. On the above violations committed by A-2, evidence of P.W.I is well strengthened by the relevant entries in the Register. 21. At the inspection (i) Bills books; (ii) B-Registers; (iii) Sales Extract for 302 instances were verified. Upon verification of the registers, extract was prepared. The details of which was annexed to Ex.P-15-Statement of the accused. By careful analysis of the extract, it is clear that the accused has adopted the same modus operandi as noted above in preparing the bogus bills and diverted the rice to open market. 22. The prosecution case is assailed mainly on the following contentions: (i) Non-examination of 302 Family Card Holders or at least few of them to show that they have not purchased the rice for the second time in the same month; (ii) Non-examination of any purchaser of the rice in the open market who purchased scheduled rice from A-2-Salesman to prove that scheduled rice was actually sold in the open market. During the investigation Family Card Holders Ponniah, Ammasi and Mokkadurai were examined by the Inspector of Police to speak to the fact that they have not purchased the rice on their family cards. Likewise Rajendran, Ammavasai, Sellaiah, Rajamani, Arivalagan, Subbiah, Karuthannan, Kannan and Thirumurthi were examined to speak that they have not purchased rice for the second time on their family card. Thus, there was thorough investigation, examining the card holders. It cannot be contended that there was no investigation at all verifying with the card holders. The card holders have not been examined before the trial Court. The Special Public Prosecutor has made endorsement “Witnesses No.4 to 18-Card Holders are gained over and they are dispensed.” When the witnesses have been gained over, the learned Public Prosecutor who conducted the trial might had formed an opinion that nothing substantial would turn out by examining those card holders. In that circumstance, non-examination of card holders during the trial would not adversely affect the prosecution case. 23. Next limb of defence advanced that no purchaser from the open market was examined does not merit acceptance. The purchaser would have purchased the scheduled rice with an eye for personal gain. While so, no one would come forward to co-operate with the investigating agency to speak to the fact that they have purchased scheduled rice. 23. Next limb of defence advanced that no purchaser from the open market was examined does not merit acceptance. The purchaser would have purchased the scheduled rice with an eye for personal gain. While so, no one would come forward to co-operate with the investigating agency to speak to the fact that they have purchased scheduled rice. Lest they would also been booked in the criminal case for violation of the provisions of Tamil Nadu Schedule Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) and Essential Commodities Act. The Court cannot lose sight of the difficulty faced by the Investigating Agency in this realm in securing such evidence. Non-examination of purchaser from the open market does not undermine the prosecution case. 24. P.W.I has inspected the fair price shop on 13.7.1995. Ex.P-14-Complaint was sent on 21.7.1995. Ex.P-15-F.I.R. was registered on 7.10.1995. On behalf of A-1 it is contended that by delaying the registration of F.I.R., the Investigating Agency was gaining time to search out the instances and to bring out a case against the accused. This contention has no force. While Ex.P-14-Complaint was lodged by P.W.I on 21.7.1995 he has clearly pointed out 302 instances. Along with the complaint, Ex.P-15-statement of the accused and the extract of 302 instances was also enclosed along with the complaint. Perhaps, to verify the same, P.W.2-Inspec-tor of Police had taken time in registering the F.I.R. There is no delay in the registration of F.I.R. Even if there is any delay, that delay is reasonable in the circumstances of the case. The delay does not in any way suggest deliberation or adding of instances against the accused. 25. The Revenue Inspectors-Pounraj and Subburaj accompanied P.W.1 at the time of inspection. During trial they were not examined. Evidence of P.W.I is well supported by the entries in the register. Evidence of P.W.1 and the extract of 302 instances sufficiently brings home the violations committed by A-2. In that circumstance, examination of Pounraj and Subburaj was not necessitated. The testimony of P.W.1 cannot be doubted or discarded merely on the ground that he happens to be the official witness. The principle of law is fairly well-settled that the testimony of the official witnesses cannot be rejected as a matter of rule merely on the ground of their official status. The testimony of P.W.1 cannot be doubted or discarded merely on the ground that he happens to be the official witness. The principle of law is fairly well-settled that the testimony of the official witnesses cannot be rejected as a matter of rule merely on the ground of their official status. Unless it is found that they had no hostility towards the accused, the Court may be perfectly justified in accepting the testimony of the official witnesses, especially when it is also found that the evidence of the official witness is well corroborated by the relevant entries in the Register and the Extracts of 302 instances. Violation of Clause 6(3) of the Tamil Nadu Scheduled Commodities Order that the scheduled rice is not to be sold to a non card holder is clearly proved by the evidence of P.W. 1 and the relevant entries in the register. The prosecution has thus proved the violation, independent of any admission by A-2. 26. During the questioning under Sec.313, Crl.P.C, A-2-Salesman has stated that about 1,300 Card Holders are attached to Fair Price Shop No. 1 and that he alone was to manage the whole sale and also make the entries. Further according to A-1 when the scheduled commodities are distributed, the card holders do not form themselves in a queue and that in the jumbled crowd omissions occur to make entries in the cards and the Family Card holders taking advantage of the same make purchase for the second time resulting in preparation of another bill for the same Ration Card. According to him there was no intentional preparation of bogus bill and A-2 had no intention of sale of scheduled rice in the open market. The trial Court placed much reliance in his judgment on the above admission of A-2. The learned Special Judge made repeated reference to the above said admission of A-2. The finding and conclusion of the trial Court does not suffer from any infirmity merely because of its reference to the admission of A-2. Admission of A-2 was only taken as an added circumstance. It is not as if the prosecution has tried to take advantage of the weakness of the defence as contended by the learned counsel for A-2. The finding and conclusion of the trial Court does not suffer from any infirmity merely because of its reference to the admission of A-2. Admission of A-2 was only taken as an added circumstance. It is not as if the prosecution has tried to take advantage of the weakness of the defence as contended by the learned counsel for A-2. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for A-2 Daulat Ram v. State of Punjab,1997 S.C.C. (Crl.) 822 and Suchand Paul v. Phoni Paul,2004 S.C.C. (Crl.) 220 have no bearing to the case in hand. 27. Let us consider the defence by A-2. According to A-2, by omission the entries were not made in card numbers and in that way the second bill came into existence and that he had no intention of diverting the scheduled rice to the open market. The defence set forth by A-2 that preparation of second bill due to human error could be accepted had it been few instances. But in as many as 302 instances bogus bills are prepared. Those 302 instances are spread over in a short span of six months. Huge number of instances and that they are spread over in a short span of six months clearly shows the mala fide intention on the part of A-2 in preparing the bogus bills and diverting the scheduled rice to the open market. 28. Violation of Clause 6(3) of the Tamil Nadu Scheduled Commodities Order is well proved by the evidence of P.W.1 and the extract of 302 instances attached to Ex.P-15 statement of the accused and the relevant entries in the registers. The learned Special Judge has rightly found the second accused guilty for the offences under Clause 6(3) of the Tamil Nadu Essential Commodities Act read with Sec.7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act. 29. Violation of Clause 14(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Scheduled Commodities Order by A-1-Bank: In the charge sheet filed A-1-Bank is named as “Uthamapuram Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank, Uthamapuram”. 29. Violation of Clause 14(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Scheduled Commodities Order by A-1-Bank: In the charge sheet filed A-1-Bank is named as “Uthamapuram Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank, Uthamapuram”. On behalf of A-1-Bank the following contentions are urged: (i) A-1-Bank cannot be fastened with criminal vicarious liability in the absence of any human agency to represent the Bank and that the entire prosecution initiated against A-1-Bank by its name is ill-founded; (ii) A-1-Bank cannot be held vicariously liable for the action of its employees, as the same is opposed to the norms and principles of criminal jurisprudence; (iii) A-1-Bank’s main business is to grant loan for the agricultural purpose and that A-1-Bank was supplying the Essential Commodities only as a show of good-will and social obligation; (iv) The essential commodities were directly supplied to the Fair Price Shops and that in the absence of entrustment of the commodities to A-1 -Bank, A-1 cannot be fastened with the vicarious liability for the omissions of its employee. 30. The above points (ii) to (v) are advanced without keeping in view the process of appointment of Authorised Dealer and the responsibility cast upon the Authorised Dealer once appointed by the District Collector. Once a person-Co-operative Bank is appointed as Authorised Dealer, an authorisation in Form-B is issued to each Fair Price Shop by the District Supply Officer... authorising it to supply Essential Commodities, on Family Cards, subject to the terms and conditions specified therein. Form-B is the prescribed form of authorisation (as per Clause 13-A) issued to the Authorised Dealer containing the terms and conditions of authorisation to supply the scheduled commodities on family cards to the card holders attached to the shop. Form-B contains the terms and conditions; place of shop; maintenance of prescribed registers. As per form-B Terms and Conditions (10) the fair price shop shall not contravene the provisions of The Tamil Nadu Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1982. Thus having appointed as the Authorised Dealer to supply the Essential Commodities, A-1-Bank cannot disown its responsibility as if it was doing the work as a show of goodwill. Being Co-operative Bank and Authorised Dealer, it is not open to A-1 -Co-operative Bank to raise the plea that it was doing the work as a show of goodwill. 31. Thus having appointed as the Authorised Dealer to supply the Essential Commodities, A-1-Bank cannot disown its responsibility as if it was doing the work as a show of goodwill. Being Co-operative Bank and Authorised Dealer, it is not open to A-1 -Co-operative Bank to raise the plea that it was doing the work as a show of goodwill. 31. A-1-Co-operative Bank is charged for the violation of Clause 14(l)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Scheduled Commodities Order which reads thus: "14. 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." Thus the Authorised Dealer is responsible for the acts of commission and omission of its servants. Of course mere omission and commission of the servants would fall upon the Co-operative Bank. Even then, bare minimum evidence is reasonably expected to be adduced to fasten the criminal liability upon A-1-Bank. 32. There is no evidence as to how A-1-Bank failed to exercise control over its Salesman A-2. In the evidence of P.W. 1 one has to search in vain as to how A-1 had not exercised effective control or that A-1-Bank failed to take reasonable care in exercising the control. As noted earlier, charge sheet is filed against A-1-Uthamapuram Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank. Nowhere it is alleged who was responsible for the conduct of the business and who ought to exercise the control over the business of the bank. Further there is no evidence that A-1-Bank had connived or consented to the act of preparing false bill by A-2. In the absence of any evidence showing A-1-Bank failed to take effective control over A-2, violation of Clause 14(1)(a) does not arise. On that score, benefit of doubt is to be given to A-1-Bank. Finding of guilt of A-1 is to be set aside. 33. Drawing the attention of the Court to the filing of charge sheet against A-1-Bank as "Uthamapuram Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank, Uthamapuram" main contention advanced is that the Bank cannot be fastened with liability, in the absence of any human agency to represent it and hence the prosecution against A-1-Bank is ill-founded. This contention of A-1 -Bank has no merits. During trial, the Bank was represented by its Secretary Ramakrishnan. This contention of A-1 -Bank has no merits. During trial, the Bank was represented by its Secretary Ramakrishnan. The maintainability of the prosecution against A-1 was not assailed; nor any appeal was preferred before the District Collector as contemplated under Clause 15 of the Tamil Nadu Scheduled Commodities Order. A-1-Bank went through the process of trial properly represented by its Secretary. Having gone through the process of trial, in the appellate stage, it is not open to A-1-Bank to raise the plea of maintainability of the prosecution against the Bank without the human agency. As there is no evidence showing who and how A-1-Bank failed to exercise control over acts of its servant, A-1-Bank is given the benefit of doubt. In that view of the matter, this Court has not gone into the point urged upon Sec. 10(1) of the Essential Commodities Act in relation to the offences committed by the companies. 34. In as much as in 302 instances of Family Cards, bogus bills are prepared, huge quantity of 3,622 Kgs of rice was diverted and sold in the open market and an amount of Rs. 13,892.50 is misappropriated. The Essential Commodities meant for Public Distribution System was diverted to the Open Market. Such diversion of Scheduled rice to the open market cannot be viewed lightly. It is stated that A-2-Salesman had already paid the amount and made good the loss. Considering that an extenuating circumstance, sentence of imprisonment of two years imposed upon A-2-Salesman is reduced to one year. 35.C.A.No.170 of 1996: For the reasons stated above, the judgment of Special Court for Essential Commodities Act, Madurai in S.T.C.No. 17 of 1995 (dated 31.1.1995) convicting A-1 -Uthamapuram Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank under Clause 14(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Scheduled Commodities Order read with Sec.7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act is set aside and this appeal is allowed. A-1-Bank is acquitted of the charge. Fine amount paid by A-1-Bank is ordered to be refunded. 36.C.A.No.125 of 1996: For the reasons stated above, the judgment of Special Court for Essential Commodities Act, Madurai in S.T.C.No. 17 of 1995 (dated 31.1.1995) convicting A-2-Salesman for the offence under Clause 6(2) of the Tamil Nadu Scheduled Commodities Order read with Sec.7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act is confirmed. The sentence of imprisonment of two years is reduced to one year. The quantum of fine is confirmed. This appeal is partly allowed accordingly.