Judgment :- The conviction and sentence passed in Calendar Case Nos.616 of 2001 and 617 of 2001 by the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Usilampatty, upheld in Criminal Appeal Nos.87 of 2006 and 88 of 2006 by the Additional District and Sessions cum Fast Track Court No.I, Madurai are now under challenge. 2. The case of the prosecution in Calendar Case No.616 of 2001 is that during the relevant period the accused has served as a salesman in Fair Price Shop, Thadaiyampatty Village. On 15.11.2000 at about 3.45 p.m. the complainant has verified family cards in the village and found that from April 2000 to October 2000 the accused has distributed things to non-card holders to the tune of Rs.46,237.50 and thereby derived personal gain. Under the said circumstances, the accused is said to have committed offence under Clause 6(2)(3) of the Tamil Nadu Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1982 read with Section 7(1)(a) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 3. The case of the prosecution in Calendar Case No.617 of 2001 is that during the relevant period the accused has served as salesman in Primary Agricultural Co-operative Fair Price Shop, Soolapuram, Periyur. On 15.11.2000 the Tasildar Flying Squad has verified ration cards and found from April 2000 to October 2000 the accused has sold commodities to non-card holders to the tune of Rs.32,380.80 and thereby he derived personal gain. Under the said circumstances, the accused is said to have committed offence under Clause 6(2)(3) of the Tamil Nadu Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1982 read with Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 4. The investigating agency after completing investigation has laid final reports against the accused on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Usilampatti. The final report filed in Crime No.116 of 2000 has been taken on file in Calendar Case No.616 of 2001 and the final report filed in Crime No.117 of 2001 has been taken on file in Calendar Case No.617 of 2001. 5. The final report filed in Crime No.116 of 2000 has been taken on file in Calendar Case No.616 of 2001 and the final report filed in Crime No.117 of 2001 has been taken on file in Calendar Case No.617 of 2001. 5. On the basis of accusation made against the accused in both the cases, the trial Court has framed a relevant charge under Clause 6(2)(3) of the Tamil Nadu Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1982 read with Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the same has been read over and explained to both the accused and both the accused have denied their respective charge framed against them and claimed to be tried. 6. In Calendar Case No.616 of 2001, on the side of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 4 have been examined and Exs.P1 to P14 have been marked. When the accused has been questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal procedure, as respects the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him, he denied his complicity in the crime. However no oral and documentary evidence have been adduced on the side of the accused. 7. In Calendar Case No.617 of 2001, on the side of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 5 have been examined and Exs.P1 to P14 have been marked. When the accused has been questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal procedure, as respects the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him, he denied his complicity in the crime. However no oral and documentary evidence have been let in on the side of the accused. 8. The trial Court, after considering the evidence available on record in both the cases, has found both the accused guilty under Clause 6(2)(3) of the Tamil Nadu Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1982 read with Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and sentenced them to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/- with usual default clause. Against the conviction and sentence passed in Calendar Case No.616 of 2001, the accused therein as appellant has filed Criminal Appeal No.87 of 2006 on the file of the first appellate Court and likewise, the accused found in Calendar Case No.617 of 2001 has preferred Criminal Appeal No.88 of 2006 on the file of the first appellate Court. 9. Against the conviction and sentence passed in Calendar Case No.616 of 2001, the accused therein as appellant has filed Criminal Appeal No.87 of 2006 on the file of the first appellate Court and likewise, the accused found in Calendar Case No.617 of 2001 has preferred Criminal Appeal No.88 of 2006 on the file of the first appellate Court. 9. The first appellate Court, after hearing both sides and after reappraising the evidence available on record, has dismissed both the appeals and thereby confirmed the conviction and sentence passed in Calendar Case Nos.616 & 617 of 2001. Against the concurrent judgments passed in Calendar Case No.616 of 2001 and in Criminal Appeal No.87 of 2006, Criminal Revision Case No.223 of 2007 has been filed on the file of this Court and likewise, against the concurrent judgments passed in Calendar Case No.617 of 2001 and in Criminal Appeal No.88 of 2006, Criminal Revision Case No.215 of 2007 has been filed. 10. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in both the revision cases, common order is pronounced. 11. As narrated earlier, the nubble of the prosecution case in both the cases is that during the relevant period the accused found in Calendar Case No.616 of 2001 has served as salesman in Fair Price Shop, Thadaiyampatty Village and from April 2000 to October 2000, he sold commodities to non-card holders to the tune of Rs.46,237.50 and thereby he derived personal gain and likewise during the relevant period the accused found in Calendar Case No.617 of 2001 has served as salesman in Primary Agricultural Co-operative Fair Price Shop, Periyur and from April 2000 to October 2000 he sold commodities to non-card holders to the tune of Rs.32,380.80 and thereby he derived personal gain. 12. Before considering the rival submissions made by either counsel, it would be apropos to look into the charge framed against both the accused. 13. Both the accused have faced a charge under Clause 6(2)(3) of the Tamil Nadu Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1982 read with Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 12. Before considering the rival submissions made by either counsel, it would be apropos to look into the charge framed against both the accused. 13. Both the accused have faced a charge under Clause 6(2)(3) of the Tamil Nadu Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1982 read with Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. In Clause 6 of the Tamil Nadu Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1982, it is stated like thus; “Supply of Scheduled Commodities.- (1) No person shall obtain in any scheduled commodities on a family card unless he - (i)registers himself with an authorised dealer, and (ii)complies with any other directions which may be issued in this behalf by the Government, the Commissioner of Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection, the Collector, the Authorised Officer, or the Inspecting Officer as the case may be. (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. (4)No person shall purchase any scheduled commodity obtained on a family card.” 14. From the close reading of Clause 6 of the of the Tamil Nadu Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1982, one can easily discern that the authorised dealer should make necessary entry in the concerned card before supplying scheduled commodities and further it is learnt that the authorised dealer should not supply scheduled commodities to any family card not registered with him or to non-card holder. Therefore, it is quite clear that a primordial duty is cast upon the authorised dealer to make necessary entry in the concerned family card before supplying scheduled commodities. 15. Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, reads as follows; “In the case of any other order, with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.” 16. As per the provision of the said Section, it is very clear that if any dealer contravenes any order, he is liable to be punished under Sub-section (ii) of the said Section. 17. As per the provision of the said Section, it is very clear that if any dealer contravenes any order, he is liable to be punished under Sub-section (ii) of the said Section. 17. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners/accused in both the cases has sparingly contended that during the relevant period both the accused have served as salesmen in respective Fair Price Shop and some card holders, without producing family cards, have used to purchase commodities from the accused and under the said circumstances, the accused in both the cases have not been able to make entries in family cards and the accused in both cases have not derived any personal benefits and further the prosecution has failed to establish that both the accused have sold commodities to non-card holders so as to enrich themselves and the Courts below without considering the infirmities found on the side of the prosecution, have erroneously found the accused guilty as per charge framed against them and therefore, the concurrent judgments passed by the Courts below are liable to be set aside. 18. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (criminal side) has also equally contended that the specific charge framed against the accused is that during the relevant period they sold commodities to non-card holders and as per Sub-clause (2) of Clause (6) of the Tamil Nadu Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1982, the authorised dealer must make necessary entry in the concerned family card before supplying commodities and the prosecution has clearly established the above legal aspect and it is totally unwarranted on the part of the prosecution to establish that both the accused have sold commodities to non-card holders so as to enrich themselves and the Courts below, after considering all the divergent contentions raised on either side, have rightly found both the accused guilty as per charge framed against them and therefore, the concurrent judgments passed by the Courts below are perfectly correct and the same need not be interfered with. 19. Basing upon the divergent submissions made by either side, the Court has to analyse as to whether the prosecution has established the guilt of both the accused as per the charge framed against them. 20. 19. Basing upon the divergent submissions made by either side, the Court has to analyse as to whether the prosecution has established the guilt of both the accused as per the charge framed against them. 20. Even at the risk of jarring repetition, the Court would like to point out that the specific case of the prosecution is that during the relevant period both the accused have sold commodities to non-card holders and thereby enriched themselves. 21. In Calendar Case No.616 of 2001 one Samuvel Sundarsingh has been examined as PW1. He has stated in his evidence that on 15.11.2000 he served as Tasildar in flying squad and on that day, he verified 'B' Register with some family cards and ultimately found that from April 2000 to October 2000 some entries have been made in 'B' Register as if commodities have been sold to some card holders, but necessary entries are not found in the concerned family cards. One Periyamayan has been examined as PW3. He has stated in his evidence that he has given family card No.24/P/135483 and the same has been marked as Ex.P14. In fact, this Court has closely perused the concerned 'B' Register, wherein it is stated that during April month rice has been issued to family card No.24/P/135483, but necessary entry is not found in Ex.P14. 22. In Calendar Case No.617 of 2001, the very same Samuvel Sundarsingh has been examined as PW1. He has stated in his evidence that on 15.11.2000 as per the direction of the District Collector, he made surprise inspection and visited 178 houses in Soolapuram Village and 178 family cards have been verified with 'B' Register and subsequently found that necessary entries have not been made in the concerned family cards. One Muthaiyan has been examined as PW4. He has stated in his evidence that he has been given family card No.24/B/138163 and the same has been marked as Ex.P2 and this Court has closely perused the concerned 'B' Register which has been marked as Ex.P1, wherein it has been stated that as per Serial No.210, sugar has been issued to the family card of PW4, but necessary entry has not been made in Ex.P2. 23. 23. As per clause 6(2) of the Tamil Nadu Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1982, a mandatory duty is cast upon the authorised dealer to make necessary entry in the concerned family card before supplying scheduled commodities. In the instant cases, as stated earlier, the prosecution has clearly established the alleged fact that the accused in both the cases have not made necessary entries in family cards. In Calendar Case No.616 of 2001 the specific contention of the prosecution is that the accused therein has sold commodities during the relevant period for a sum of Rs.46,237.50 without making necessary entries in the concerned family cards. Likewise, in Calendar Case No.617 of 2001 the specific contention of the prosecution is that the concerned accused during the relevant period has sold the commodities to the tune of Rs.32,380.80 without making necessary entries in the concerned family cards. It has already been pointed out in several places that a primordial duty is cast upon the authorised dealer to make necessary entries in the concerned cards before supplying commodities. Therefore, it is quite clear that the prosecution has clearly established the respective charge framed against both the accused. 24. The main argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner in both the revision cases is that the prosecution has failed to establish that both the accused have sold commodities to non-card holders. The specific charge framed against both the accused is that both of them have not complied with the mandatory provision of clause 6(2)(3) of the Tamil Nadu Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1982. Therefore, it is totally unwarranted on the part of the prosecution to examine the alleged persons (non-card holders) who purchased commodities from the accused. It has already been pointed out that the prosecution has clearly established the guilt of both the accused as per respective charge framed against them and in view of the foregoing narration of both the factual and legal aspects, this Court is of the view that the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants in both the cases is not at all having merit, whereas the argument advanced by the learned Government Advocate (criminal side) is really having subsisting force. 25. 25. The trial Court, after analysing all the evidence available on record, has rightly found that both the accused are guilty as per respective charge framed against them. The first appellate Court has also rightly reappraised the entire evidence available on record and ultimately dismissed Criminal Appeal Nos.87 & 88 of 2006 and this Court has not found any valid ground to make interference with the well merited judgments passed by the Courts below and altogether the present criminal revision cases deserve dismissal. 26. In fine, these criminal revision cases deserve dismissal and accordingly are dismissed. The conviction and sentence passed in Calendar Case Nos.616 & 617 of 2001 by the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Usilampatti, upheld in Criminal Appeal Nos.87 & 88 of 2006 by the Additional District and Sessions cum Fast Track Court No.I, Madurai are confirmed. If the revision petitioners/accused are not in duress, the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Usilampatti is directed to take appropriate action so as to imprison them.