S PANCHAPAKESA IYER Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU
LAWS(MAD)-1953-5-8
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on May 01,1953

S.PANCHAPAKESA IYER Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF TAMIL NADU Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Somasundaram, J. - (1.) This petition is by the first accused in C. C. No. 187 of 1951 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mayuram. He and two others were charged by the Textile Control Officer for contravention of the provisions of the Cotton Textile (Control) Order, 1948, Clause 24(1) read with Clause 10 of the Madras Cloth (Dealers) Control Order, 1948, which are punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946. They were charged on two counts (1) for selling cloths at a higher price, and (2) for not issuing a bill in accordance with Clause 9 of the conditions of the licence. They were acquitted on the first count but on the second count, the first and third accused were convicted; the second accused being a partner and not a licensee was acquitted. The first accused is a licensee and proprietor of a shop called "Ram-kesh", Silk Emporium, Mayuram. The third accused is a clerk employed by the first accused and a salesman in the shop. P. W. 3 came and purchased 2 1/2 yards of mill shirting cloth at Rs. 1-4-0 per yard. The third accused, the salesman, sold the same and the purchaser went away without taking a bill in the first instance. She came back about an hour later and asked for a bill. After some bargaining, the third accused gave a bill on a plain paper. The bill has been produced; and it is in respect of this bill that was only on plain paper that both the first accused and the third accused were finally convicted. The final sentence on the third accused was Rs. 50 and the first accused also was fined Rs. 60 but the third accused had an additional sentence of Rs. 25 as he was charged on both counts and convicted.
(2.) In revision on behalf of the first accused the main point that is urged is that the first accused was not present at the time of the purchase by P. W. 3 and that for any misconduct or omission on the part of the third accused to issue a proper bill the first accused cannot be made liable.
(3.) Under Clause 10 of the Madras Cloth (Dealers) Control Order, 1948 "The holder or a licence granted under this Order shall be bound by the provisions of this Order and the conditions of his licence." Condition 9 of the licence is as follows: "The licensee shall issue to every customer a correct cash receipt or credit note, as the case may be, and shall keep a duplicate of the same and shall present it for inspection on demand by any Inspecting Officer. Every such receipt or credit note shall be signed by the salesman and shall give the name and address of the buyer, the description and quantity of the cloth sold and the prices charged therefor.";


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.