SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(SC) 483

2000(6) Supreme 459
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. Rajendra Babu & S.N. Phukan, JJ.
Mohinder Kumar -Appellant
versus
The State of Haryana and Anr. -Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 261 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2320 of 1999)
Decided on 3-3-2000

IMPORTANT POINT
When decision on correctness of Division Bench on similar issue is pending for decision before Full Bench another Division Bench cannot decide case following decision of earlier decision of Division Bench.

Headnote:Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Sections 385 and 386-Essential Commodities Act-Section 7-Fertilizer Control Order-Clause 19-Criminal appeal-Procedure for hearing/powers of Court-Appeal against conviction under Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act-Similar matter referred to Full Bench doubting correctness of decision of Division Bench-Division Bench, however, proposing to dispose of appeal following decision in Division Bench-Not proper-Order of High Court set aside and matter remitted to High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. (Para 3)

       

ORDER

Leave granted.

2. A petition was filed before the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the complaint dated 3.2.1999 under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act read with clause 19 of the Fertilizer Control Order.

3. On an earlier occasion in a similar matter the High Court doubting the correctness of the decision of the Division Bench, the matter had been referred to the Full Bench. On behalf of the Appellant, it was brought to the notice of High Court that when the matter was still under consideration and it would be in the fitness of things to await the outcome of the decision in that matter by the Full Bench. However, without awaiting for the outcome of the decision in that matter by the Full Bench, the High Court proceeded to state that so long as ruling of the Division Bench holds the field, the learned Single Judge proposed to follow the same decision and decide the matter. We do not think that was the right course adopted by the High Court. We, therefore, set aside the order passed by the High Court and remit the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. It has also been brought to our notice that the Full Bench decision has now been rendered. Appeal is allowed accordingly.

(C.R.) Appeal allowed.

**************

Parallel Citations of other Journals :

Mohinder Kumar v. The State of Haryana and Anr., 2000(6) Supreme 459 : 2000 (7) JT 438 : 2000 (3) All. Crl. L.R. 207 : 2000 (4) Cur. Crl.R. 47 : 2000 (4) Crimes 70

 

 

00023

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top