Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 176 (GAU)

Arindam Datta v. State of Tripura

2009-03-12

C.R.SARMA

body2009
JUDGMENT C.R. Sarma, J. 1. This criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.7.2002 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Khowai, West Tripura in Criminal Appeal No. 11(2) of2002 upholding the judgment and order dated 30.4.2002 passed by the learned SDJM, Khowai, West Tripura in GR. case No. 311 of 2002 and thereby convicting the accused/revision Petitioner for the violation of the provisions of Rules 14 and 15 of the Tripura Foodgrains (Distribution) Control Order, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Control Order) and thus sentencing the revision- Petitioner to suffer one year simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000, in default, further SI for three months. 2. Heard Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Counsel appearing for the revision- Petitioner and Mr R.C. Debnath, learned PP-in-Charge for the State. 3. The prosecution case in brief may be stated as follows: On 28.11.2000 at about 1 pm the Sub Divisional Controller of Food (for short, SDC), Khowai, while inspecting the Fair Price Shop, Sonatala, wherein the revision-Petitioner was the Manager, found shortage of 575 kgs of sugar in the stock of the Fair Price shop. The SDC seized the remaining 217 kg of levy sugar by preparing seizure list in presence of witnesses and thereafter instructed the Inspector of Food to lodge a complaint against the revision Petitioner Sri Arindam Datta for violation of Rules 14 and 15 of the Control Order. Accordingly, the Inspector of Food lodged a written complaint with the Officer-in-Charge of the Khowai Police Station. The police registered a case and at the close of the investigation submitted chargesheet against the revision Petitioner for the offences under Section 7(i)(ii)(a) of the Essential Commodities Act and for violation of Rules 14 and 15 of the Control Order. The learned SDJM explained the particulars of the offence to the accused-person to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In order to prove the prosecution case as many as 9 witnesses were examined. At the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused person was examined under Section 313Code of Criminal Procedure. He denied the allegations and declined to adduce any defence witness. 4. The learned SDJM, Khowai convicted the accused/revision Petitioner for violation of Rules 14 and 15 of the Control Order aforesaid and sentenced him to suffer SI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. He denied the allegations and declined to adduce any defence witness. 4. The learned SDJM, Khowai convicted the accused/revision Petitioner for violation of Rules 14 and 15 of the Control Order aforesaid and sentenced him to suffer SI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000, in default, to suffer SI for further three months. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order the accused preferred an appeal before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Khowai, West Tripura and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge by the impugned judgment and order dated 31.7.2002, while dismissing the appeal, affirmed the conviction and the sentence passed by the learned trial Judge. 5. Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Counsel appearing for the revision Petitioner while drawing the attention of this Court to the provisions of Rule 2(d) and Rules 14 and 15 of the Tripura Foodgrains (Distribution) Control Order, 1972 has submitted that sugar is not covered by the definition' foodgrains' as prescribed by the Rule 2(d) of the Control Order and as such the learned Courts below committed gross illegality by convicting and sentencing the accused/revision Petitioner under Rules 14 and 15 of the Control Order, Rule 2(d) of the Control Order defines the foodgrains as follows: Foodgrains means paddy, rice and wheat and includes atta, flour and suji. 6. Admittedly, in the present case before us, shortage of levy sugar was detected by the SDC and the allegation brought against the revision Petitioner was that he failed to, maintain proper stock of the levy sugar and thus violated the provisions of Rules 14 and 15 of the Control Order. Rules 14 and 15 read as follows: 14. Stock Register-An appointed retailer, immediately on receipt of the foodgrains lifted by him from the Government godowns shall enter the same in appropriate stock register to be maintained by him in this behalf. 15. Sale of foodgrains to consumers. Every appointed retailer shall sell foodgrains to consumers in such quantities and at such rate or rates as may be specified in the order made from time to time by the State Government. 7. From the definitions as prescribed by Rule 2(d) of the Control Order it is found that sugar was not an item covered by the definition 'foodgrains'. Therefore, the order of conviction passed by the learned Courts below for violation of Rules 14 and 15 of the Control Order was not lawful. 7. From the definitions as prescribed by Rule 2(d) of the Control Order it is found that sugar was not an item covered by the definition 'foodgrains'. Therefore, the order of conviction passed by the learned Courts below for violation of Rules 14 and 15 of the Control Order was not lawful. In my considered view, the learned SDJM, Khowai as well as learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Khowai failed to apply their minds to the Rule 2(d) of the Control Order and thereby committed gross illegality by holding the revision Petitioner guilty of violating the provisions of Rules Hand 15 of the Control Order. 8. In view of the above, I find that there is sufficient merit in the revision petition and as such the same is allowed. In the result, the judgments passed by the Courts below in GR. case No. 311 of 2002 and Criminal Appeal No. 11(2) of 2002 dated 30.4.2002 and 31.7.2002 respectively convicting the revision Petitioner for violating the Rules 14 and 15 of the Control Order and thereby sentencing him to suffer SI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, further SI for three months are set aside and quashed. The lower Court records be returned. Bail bonds of the accused/revision Petitioner shall stand discharged.