O. CHHINNAPPA REDDY, Y. V. CHANDRACHUD
State of A. P. – Appellant
Versus
P. Jagannadhan – Respondent
(1) THE High court has quashed a charge framed against the respondents for breach of a Control Order. Mr Ram Reddy, who appears on behalf of the appellant, the State of Andhra Pradesh, says that the amendment which was made in 1971 to Clause (7) of the Iron and Steel (Control) Older, 1956, was not brought to the notice of the High court. Clause (7) as It originally stood, contained reference to acquisition of iron or steel in accordance with the provision of Clause (4). The amendme.nt made in 1971 deleted reference to that clause.
(2) MR Ram Reddy may perhaps be right that if the attention of the High court were drawn to Clause (7) as amended, it would not have quashed the charge. We are, however, of the opinion that no useful purpose is likely to be served by setting aside the judgment of the High court and directing a trial of the accused. It appears from the complaint which was filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police before the X Metropolitan Magiatrate, Secunderabad on 25/09/1975 that the investigation had disclosed that the Medak Cooperative Society had become defunct due to lack of finance and lack of members. If that isso.it would bedifficult at this distant date
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.