S CHINNASAMY Vs. SEED INSPECTOR COIMBATORE
LAWS(SC)-2006-9-1
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: MADRAS)
Decided on September 29,2006

S.CHINNASAMY,R.SOUNDARARAJAN Appellant
VERSUS
SEED INSPECTOR, COIMBATORE Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

PREMODAYA VS. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD [LAWS(APH)-2006-9-137] [REFERRED TO]
MAHENDRA SINGH VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2008-4-57] [REFERRED TO]
YADWINDER SINGH VS. SUNIL GUMBER [LAWS(P&H)-2013-12-209] [REFERRED TO]
SHAMSHER SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2015-10-28] [REFERRED TO]
NIRBHAI SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2015-8-254] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA RANA AND ORS. VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2015-11-123] [REFERRED TO]
SURINDER SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2012-7-175] [REFERRED TO]
PRITPAL SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2015-8-253] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN SINGH VS. SHYAM LAL AND ANOTHER [LAWS(P&H)-2013-12-262] [REFERRED TO]
DILBAG SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2012-9-565] [REFERRED]
SOHNI SINGH AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2012-9-568] [REFERRED]
KARNAIL SINGH @ HERO VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2013-12-528] [REFERRED]
SUKHWINDER SINGH @ SHINDA VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2015-10-326] [REFERRED]
SUBHASH CHANDER VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2015-10-451] [REFERRED]
GURNAM SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2010-7-57] [REFERRED TO]
RAJINDER KUMAR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2010-7-61] [REFERRED TO]
JAWAHAR LAL VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2010-7-70] [REFERRED TO]
SATBIR VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2012-7-260] [REFERRED TO]
ANTAR SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER [LAWS(P&H)-2012-8-175] [REFERRED TO]
MANGAL SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2012-8-176] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH KUMAR VS. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. [LAWS(P&H)-2012-8-177] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL KUMAR VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2012-7-264] [REFERRED TO]
RAVINDER SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2012-7-266] [REFERRED TO]
UJALA VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2012-8-223] [REFERRED]
SARABJIT SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2012-7-495] [REFERRED]
YASHPAL & OTHERS VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2012-7-503] [REFERRED]
HARJIT SINGH AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2012-8-441] [REFERRED]
SADHU SINGH AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER [LAWS(P&H)-2012-8-515] [REFERRED]
CHAJJA SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2012-8-520] [REFERRED]
SUKHMANDER SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2012-9-611] [REFERRED]
HARBANS LAL VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2020-1-208] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH CHANDRA PRAJAPATI VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(UTN)-2019-12-68] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Dalveer Bhandari, J. - (1.)These criminal appeals emanate from the judgment of the High Court of Judicature of Madras dated 3.12.2004 by 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(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 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.
(2.)Brief facts which are imperative to dispose of these appeals are recapitulated as under: The Seed Inspector, Coimbatore, PW1, went for inspection of the shop of appellant no. 1 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.
(3.)The Seed Inspector, on 25.10.1996 again had gone to the shop of appellant no. 1, S. Chinnasamy, but appellant no.1 was not there and appellant no. 2, R. Soundarajan, his agent, was running the business of the shop at that time. According to the statement of PW 1, the appellants were transacting business in pesticides, fertilizers and seeds. The Seed Inspector on inspection found 2ΒΌ kgs. of cotton seeds and 2 kgs. of tomato seeds in the shop. Appellant no. 1 had not obtained any licence for selling the seeds. According to the Seed Inspector P.W.1, neither the price list nor the index was displayed in the shop. Particulars of the seed varieties were also not displayed. No books, accounts or records were maintained. The above quantity of seeds found in the shop was packed and sealed in the presence of appellant no. 2, R. Soundarajan and the same was entrusted to him with the instructions to the proprietor to give his explanation on or before 30.10.1996. The Inspection Report was prepared and on the same appellant no. 2, R. Soundarajan had appended his signature. The Bill Book Exb.6 was also seized. The Bill book revealed that appellant no.1 had transacted business in seeds without any valid permit. The Seed Inspector prepared the complaint on the instructions of his superior officer, PW2, Thiru Isac Jesudas.


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