Decided on July 23,1953

MANU IYER Appellant


Ramaswami, J. - (1.) This is a criminal revision case filed against the conviction and sentence of the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate of Koilpatti in C. C. No. 50 of 1952.
(2.) The facts are: There is no dispute that a valid licence had been issued under the Madras Cloth Dealers Control Order in the name of Ramaswami Aiyar, the undivided father of the petitioner herein. It is also clear that the father and son were carrying on business as a joint family concern. This licence was renewed upto 1951. Ramaswami Iyer died in April 1950. In these circumstances the petitioner herein, the son of Ramaswami Aiyar had been prosecuted for selling M. Os. 1 to 5 to a hawker P. W. 1, viz, under Section 7 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, for contravening clause 4(1) of the Madras Cloth Dealers Control Order, 1948.
(3.) The case for the accused was set out in his written statement as follows: "My deceased father and myself were carrying on the firm 'Messrs. Ramaswami Iyer'. My father died about the month of April 1950 having already applied for the renewal of the licence for April to September 1950. Subsequent to his demise I presented a petition in person to the authorities intimating the factum of my father's demise and producing the certificate of income-tax assessment. Ajjain for October 1950 to March 31st, 1951. I remitted Rs. 12-8-0 on 18-9-1950 Into the Tenkasi Sub Treasury and sent an application with letter along with the chalan mentioning in the application the fact of my father's death. I got the same licence renewed in the same name from the Department. Further, for the period of Apiil 1951 to September 1951 I did remit the licence fee in the Tiruchirapalli taluk Treasury Chalan No. 3853 ar.d sent the same along with an application to the Department through the District Piecegoods Merchants Association, Tirunelveli. I again got the licence renewed in the firm's name. So that throughout and on the alleged date 20-6-1951 I held a valid licence in the name of the firm." The learned Sub Divisional Magistrate declined to accept the explanation of the accused, found the accused guilty as charged and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 50.;

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