Back
C.K.THAKKER, ARIJIT PASAYAT
Prakash Babu Raghuvanshi – Appellant
Versus
State Of M. P. – Respondent
Key Points: - The essential requirement for applying Section 7 is the existence of an order under Section 3 that was allegedly violated (!) (!) . - A Scheme framed under Article 162 of the Constitution can be the basis for action, but the prosecution must place the specific "order" on record; without it, Section 7 cannot be invoked (!) (!) . - Section 3 empowers control over production, supply, distribution of essential commodities, and "notified order" is defined as an order in the Gazette; an "order includes a direction issued thereunder" (!) . - The Court remitted the matter to the High Court to consider which particular "order" was violated, allowing the parties to submit materials (!) . - The bail order remains in effect pending fresh adjudication, without expressing a view on guilt (!) . - The appeal was disposed of with the direction to examine the documentary order in question during fresh proceedings (!) (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT
Arijit Pasayat, J.-Leave granted.
2. An interesting point has been raised in the appeal, which unfortunately does not appear to have been canvassed before the courts below. The appellant was convicted for allegedly committing offence in terms of Section 3 read with Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (in short the Act ). He was found guilty by the learned Sessions Judge, Vidisha in Sessions Case No. 11 of 1996. The conviction and the sentence of one years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- as had been imposed, came to be confirmed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench by the impugned judgment.
3. Mr. S.B. Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that for attracting Section-7 of the Act, the primary requirement is that there must be violation of an order. What the prosecution seems to have relied upon is Madhya Pradesh Sarvajanik Purti Vitaran Scheme, 1991 (in short the Scheme ). According to him, the Scheme cannot be equated with an order, as required under the Act. Learned counsel for the respondent-State, on the other hand, submitted that such a plea which essentially would n
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
