LexM/S. IPOUR GKC & RKC & SONS & ANR. versus STATE REP. BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER PONDICHERRY & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2008) 12 S.C.R. 892 A M/S. IPOUR GKC & RKC & SONS & ANR. r v. STATE REP. BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER PONDICHERRY & ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 504 of 2001) B AUGUST 28, 2008 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM ).... SHARMA, JJ.] c Pondicherry Kerosene Control Order, 1969/Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Clause 131 s. 7 - Violation of the provisions - Vehicle reporting carrying kerosene for the accused firm found empty at check-post...:. Driver and cleaner of the vehicle stated to have sold the kerosene on the way - D Prosecution of the firm, its partner, driver, cleaner and retail dealers on the basis of the statement - Trial court acquitting all the accused - High Court convicting the firm and its partner ? - On appeal, held: The provisions are not. applicable to the ~ present case so as to warrant conviction of the firm and its E partner. Seven accused were charged for having violated Clause 13 of Pondicherry Kerosene Control Order, 1969. Appellant-A1 was a partnership firm-wholesale dealer of kerosene. Appellant-A2 was. the partner of the firm, A3 F and A4 were the driver and cleaner respectively of the vehicle in which the kerosene was being imported to A·1 -L '· firm. AS, AG and A7 were the retail dealers of kerosene. I According to prosecution, the v~hicle reporting import of 11,000 litres of kerosene, when was stopped G and checked at the checkpost, it was found empty. Statement of A3 (driver) was recorded to the effect that he + had sold the oil on the way. The statement, however, was .\, not signed by him. Prosecution was initiated. Trial court acquitted all the accused. High Court convicted A1-firm H 392 T . ,; M/S. !POUR GKC & RKC & SONS & ANR. v. STATE 893 REP. BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER --+ and A2-Partner and upheld acquittal as regards other. A accused. Hence the present appeal. . Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD:Both the trial Court and the High Court held that A3 is purported to have made a statement that he B had sold the kerosene on the way. Similar statement was purportedly given by A4. But the officials proceeded to act on the aforesaid statements which were undisputedly not signed statement. Apart from the fact that the said statement did not in any way implicate the c appellants, the effect of such statement to find the appellants guilty has been lost sight of by the High Court. The trial court found that there was no evidence to show and no steps were taken and no investigation was focused, as to whether the articles were sold on the 0 way. The categorical findings of the trial Court and the High Court were that no suc.h sale took place. Even if the stand of the prosecution is accepted that the receipt was not established, that would in a sense relate to the purchase and not to sale and, therefore, Clause 13 of Pondicherry Kerosene Control Order, 1969 read with E Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 do not have any application. The trial Court was, therefore, justified in directing acquittal of the appellant and the High Court without properly analyzing the legal position directed conviction. [Para 6] [895 H 896 A,B,C,D] F CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 504 of 2001 From the final Judgment and Order dated 22.11.2000 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No. G 401 of 1993 M. Karpaga Vinayagam, Anil Kaush1k, Shiv Prakash Pandey and Gopal Singh for the A.ppellants. V. Kanakraj, S.J. Aristotle. V.G. Pragasam and H 894 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 12 S.C.R. A Prabhuramasubramanian for the Respondent. .......- The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Or. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1.Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Madras High 8,., Court setting aside the judgment of acquittal rendered by learned Special judge, Pondicherry in STR No .. 95 of 1984 so far as the appellants are concerned while upholding the acquittal in respect -,,.___ of five others. c 2. The seven accused persons faced trial in the following manner: The charges against the accused/appellants are that Al is ~ a.partnership firm and A2 is the partner of the firm, A3 is the r- Driver of the Vehicle concerned and A4 is Cleaner, while A5, ~ A6 .and A7 are said to be retail dealers of Kerosene. The I D Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited from Madras is t- distributing Kerosene to A 1 firm at Pondicherry and Al firm has to observe C
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.