HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Click here to view full judgement.
RAMASWAMI, J. -
(1.) THIS is a Criminal Revision Case which has been filed against the conviction and sentence of the Second Additional First Class Magistrate of Thiruchirapalli in S. T. Case No. 129 Of 1951.
(2.) THE facts are: The petitioner Kasi Raja son of Periyasami Muthuraja is the proprietor of the Thiruveswarar Rice Mills, Ariyur. This proprietor employed a driver who has been examined as P. W. 3 in this case for driving the rice mill. On the night of 21 -10 -1950 at about 2 -30 A.M. the Taluk Supply Officer, who has been examined as P. W. 1, made a surprise visit. Then he found that the driver was hulling four kalams of paddy belonging to one Appu Ayyar of Ariyur village without a permit, The proprietor was absent from the place. Therefore the Taluk Supply Officer recorded statements from the engine driver as well as the village Munsif. The statement given by the driver is Ex. P -l and the statement given by the village Munsif is Ex. P -2. In the statement given by the driver and from which he went behind in the Court when he was examined as P. W. 3, on account of which he was treated as hostile to the prosecution and was cross -examined, this driver has admitted as follows: (After quoting the evidence of this witness His Lordship proceeded:) The village munsif gave a statement to which he has stuck to in the Court when he was examined as P. W. 2 namely that when the mill was suddenly inspected by the Taluk Supply Officer at 2 -30 A.M. the facts found were as set out in the above statement of the driver. The village munsif also touched the machine and found it very hot showing that it had just been running. In addition, the Taluk Supply Officer stated that when he made this surprise raid he found persons dispersing with loads of paddy and that the lights wore put out. Therefore he obtained necessary sanction of the Collector and prosecuted this proprietor Kasi Rajan under Section 7(1), Essential Supplies Temporary Powers Act.
The case for the accused seems to be twofold namely that there was no running of the machine and hulling of paddy of Appu Ayyar without a permit and secondly that he the master is not liable for the act of the servants. One is a finding of fact and the other is a point of law.
(3.) TURNING to the point of fact, there cannot be the slightest doubt that the version of the petitioner before us is a tissue of lies from beginning to end. (After discussion of the evidence His Lordship concluded). It is manifest therefore, that what was being hulled was hulled without the proper hulling permit. Therefore it is absolutely clear that when the Taluk Supply Officer had raided this mill at an unearthly hour, the mill was working and was actually grinding paddy for Appu Ayyar without 'a hulling permit.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.