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

1982 Supreme(SC) 192

O. CHHINNAPPA REDDY, Y. V. CHANDRACHUD
State of A. P. – Appellant
Versus
P. Jagannadhan – Respondent


Advocates:
G.VENKATESWARA RAO, P.RAM REDDY

(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

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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top