Tatipamula Laxminarayana and ors. Vs. State of A.P. - Court Judgment

L. Narasimha Reddy, J.

1. The appellants were tried as A1 to A3 in STC No. 6 of 1989 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, for contravention of Clause 7(b)(ii) of A.P. Rice Procurement (Levy) Order 1984 (for short 'the 1984 Order'} and Clause 3 of A. P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing and Distribution) Order 1982 (for short the 1982 Order') read with Conditions 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the license, punishable under Sections 7 and 9 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court, through its judgment dated 12-9-1996, found guilty and convicted them of the said offences. For the contravention of the 1984 Order, they were sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- each; in default to undergo SI for a period of 6 months each. Similar sentence was awarded for the contravention of the 1982 Order and the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the accused preferred this appeal.

2. The case of the prosecution is briefly stated as under :--

3. PW-3 is the District Supply Officer of Karimanagar. A1 is the Rice Miller, A2 is his Gumasta (Clerk) and A3 is the brother in law of A2. One Head Constable from Central Crime Station (CCS), Medak, had come to PW-3 and shown 8 Forms of Release Certificates said to have been issued by PW-3 and wanted to verify the same with reference to the originals. On verification, they were found to be bogus. Accordingly, PW-3 reported the matter to the Inspector of Vigilance Cell, PW-18. PW-18, in turn, raided the business premises of A1 on 26-9-1985 He found certain incriminating material against A1 and A3.

4. At the instance of A3 and on his confessional statement, 20 blank forms of Release Certificates printed in M/s Laxmi Printers, Kamareddy, were recovered. The specimen signatures of A3 were taken. The typewriter, which is said to have been used in filling the blanks in the forms, was also examined. During further investigation, 19 more blank forms were recovered, which were intended to be used by A1 for transporting rice to Maharashtra and Karnataka States. The opinion of PW-17, the Handwriting Expert, was obtained which indicated that the Release Forms used by A1 were take in nature.

5. Sri C. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants accused, submits that there was any amount of vagueness in the case of the prosecution, apart from lack of coherence in the evidence adduced by them. He submits that the prosecution itself was not sure as to its case. According to him, the prosecution has come forward with the plea of forgery and such an offence could have been tried under the provisions of Indian Penal Code (IPC), that too, through a regular Prosecuting Agency. When no offence under the corresponding provision of IPC is alleged, the plea of forgery could not have been pleaded at all. The learned counsel submits that once there did not exist any basis for the plea of forgery and once the trial Court had found that the prosecution has failed in its efforts to establish the same, the rest of the allegations as to the violations of the various Control Orders, were without any basis.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that the prosecution has examined the Complaint PW-3, who is none other than the District Supply Officer, PW-1, whose printing press was used in printing the take Release Forms and PW-2, whose numbering machine was used by the accused. It is also his case that though forgery as such is not an offence alleged against the appellants, the same constitutes one of the aspects in establishing that the accused have fabricated certain documents and thereby violated the provisions of the Control Orders referred to above. It is also his case that by examining the Driver, who transported the rice belonging to A1, the prosecution has established the various clandestine activities resorted to by the accused and the judgment of the trial court does not call for any interference.

7. The contraventions alleged against the accused are the one under the Essential Commodities Act. The State Government had issued various Control Orders in exercise of its power under Section 3 of the Act. Two such Orders, which have a bearing on the trade in rice, are the Control Orders of 1984 and 1982 referred to above. The appellants are alleged to have contravened these Control Orders. Section 7 of the Act provides for punishment for contravention of the said control Orders.

8. The basis of allegation by the prosecution against the accused is that one Constable from Medak had come to PW-3 and had shown 8 Release Certificates issued in the name of the Rice Mill of Al, which are used for transporting the rice to the States of Maharashtra and Karnataka. This was the starting point of suspicion against the accused. PW-3 had obtained Xerox copies of the said Release Certificates and reported the matter to the Vigilance Inspector-PW-18. It was only in the process of further verification as to whether the said 8 Certificates marked as Exs. P55 to P62 were forged that PW-18 had raided the premises. Excepting certain blank forms, no other incriminating material has been recovered.

9. The prosecution intended to establish that the originals of Ex's. P55 to P62 were forged by A1. It is in this process that the originals of the said Certificates, marked as Exs. P.7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 43 and 44, were compared with the signatures of PW-3.

10. PW-17, who is said to be the Handwriting Expert, was examined. After describing the various exercise undertaken by him, he ultimately stated as under :--

'I cannot give opinion of the authorship on the simulation forgery. I cannot say whether the accused No. 1 has signed the signatures of the officer on the questioned documents.'

With this, hardly there exists any case against the accused as regards the allegation of forgery.

11. Added to this, the Head Constable, who is said to have come to PW-3 by showing the alleged forged Release Certificates, was not examined. The prosecution did not explain as to from whose custody the same were recovered. There is not even allegation that the said 8 Release Certificate were recovered from the custody of the accused or that they were found to have been using them in transporting the rice. That being the situation, even assuming that the said 8 Certificates are forged, hardly there existed any link to connect the accused with those documents. Rest of the exercise of the prosecution was ancillary in nature. The various other documents were only blank forms said to have been recovered from various places. Even assuming that certain blank forms were recovered from the accused, that by itself does not constitute the contravention of the Control Orders.

12. Even with the help of the so-called forged Release Certificates, the other blank forms said to have been recovered from various accused, examination of Drivers of the Trucks, the prosecution was not able to establish that any particular quantity of rice was transported or held by the accused in contravention of the Control Orders referred to above.

13. In the cases under the Essential Commodities Act, the only basis on which the trader or his associates can be punished is by establishing contravention. Excepting the material referred to above, the prosecution did not establish any specific instance of contravention of the Control Orders by the accused. The trial Court had found, in my view, rightly that the prosecution in this case have not taken any steps to establish the allegations as to forgery under the relevant provisions of law. Once that is not done, the whole basis for the case of the prosecution disappears. Having so observed, the trial Court was not justified in assuming for itself the existence of the contravention of the provisions of the various Control Orders. The accused could not have been punished on the basis of non-existent grounds. Inflicting such severe penalties on the basis of certain presumptions and assumptions is impermissible.

14. The conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court against the accused is accordingly set aside and the Criminal Appeal is allowed. Fine, if any, paid by the appellants shall be refunded.