S. CHINNASAMY AND ANR. versus SEED INSPECTOR, COIMBATORE AND ANR.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 918 · Decided: 29-09-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
S. CHINNASAMY AND ANR. 
v. 
SEED INSPECTOR, COIMBATORE AND ANR. 
SEPTEMBER 29. 2006 
(S.B. SINHA AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.] 
Essential Commodities Act, 1955---Section 3(2)(a), (hJ, (i) & 7(/)(a)(ii)-
Seeds (Control) Order, 1983-Clauses 3(1), 8(a)& (b) & 18(1)-Conviction 
C by Courts below for violation of Seeds Control Order-Imposition of sentence 
for three months-Accused already undergone imprisonment for one month-
They pleaded for reduction of sentence to period already undergone-Plea 
upheld in view of concession made by State in the peculiar facts viz. accused 
2 was a young boy aged 17 years at the time of commission of offence; 
quantity of seeds seized was small and the case registered was the first of its 
D kind in the State. 
Appellants were allegedly carrying out business in seeds without valid 
licence. The Special Judge (E.C./N.D.P.S. Act) convicted them for violation 
of clauses 3(1), 8(a) and (b) and 18(1) of the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983 
with reference to clauses (a), (h) and (i) of sub-section 2 of Section 3 
E punishable under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 
and sentenced them to undergo three months simple imprisonment. High 
Court upheld the judgment of the Special Judge. 
In appeals to this Court, the Appellants submitted that the sentence 
F imposed by the Courts below was disproportionate, excessive and harsh. 
They submitted that including the period of remission, they had already 
undergone imprisonment of about one month and that the ends of justice 
would be met if their sentence was reduced to the period already 
undergone. In response, the State made concession considering the peculiar 
facts of the case, viz. that Appellant No. 2 was a young boy aged 17 years 
G at the time of commission of offence; that the quantity of seeds seized was 
small and that it was the first case recorded in the State of Tamil Nadu 
for violation under the Seeds (Control) .Order. 
H 
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court 
918 
' 
' 
\ 
> 
MOTi LAL SARAF,., STATE OF JAMMU & KASMIR [DAL VEER BHANDARI, J.] 919 
HELD: 1. In view of submission of State, it is not deemed appropriate A 
to adjudicj\te and give findings on the various issues raised by the counsel 
for the parties. (925-DJ 
2. On consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances of 
this case, particularly in view of the statement made by the State, the ends 
of justice would be met, if the sentence of the appellants is reduced to the B 
period already undergone by them. The appellants were released by this 
Court during the pendency of these appeals and they are now not required 
to surrender. (925-E, F) 
CRIMINAL APPEL LA TE Jl:JRISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos. C 
1521-1522 of 2005. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 3.12.2004 ·of the High Court of 
Judicature at Madras in Crl. A.No. 719/1997. 
P. Anand Padmanabhan and Pramod Dayal for the Appellant. 
D 
V.G. Pragasam for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DALVEER BHANDARI, J .. These criminal appeals emanate-from the 
judgment of the High Court of Judicature of Madras dated 3.12.2004 by E 
which the learned Single Judge of the High Court has upheld the judgment 
of the Special Judge (E.C./N.D.P.S. Act), Coimbatore dated 9.9.1997 for 
violation of clauses 3(1), 8(a) and (b) and 18(1) of Seeds (Control) Order, 
1983 with reference to clauses (a), (h) and (i) of sub-section 2 of the Section 
3 punishable under Section 7(l)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, F 
1955. The Special Judge sentenced the appellants/accused to undergo three 
months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each on three 
counts. 
Brief facts which are imperative to dispose of these appeals are 
recapitulated as under:-
G 
The Seed Inspector, Coimbatore, PW I, went for inspection of the shop 
of appellant no. I on 15.5.1996. According to him, the shop was open but 
there was no responsible person available in the shop, therefore, the Seed 
Inspector could not conduct the inspection on that day though he waited there 
for about an hour. 
H 
920 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006) SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A 
The Seed Inspector, on 25.10. 1996 again had gone to the shop of 
appellant no. I, S. Chinnasamy, but appellantno.1 was not there and appellant 
no. 2, R. Soundarajan, his agent, was running the busine~s of the shop at that 
time. According to the statement of PW I, the appellants were transacting 
business in pesticides, fertilizers and seeds. The 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.