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

1986 Supreme(Kar) 340

A.K.LAXMESHWAR, M.S.PATIL
STATE OF KARNATAKD – Appellant
Versus
P. M. NAGESHWARA RAO – Respondent


M. S. PATIL, J.

( 1 ) HEARD. Perused the judgment. The IInd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mysore, having acquitted the accused-respondents of the charge of the offence undar S. 7 R/w 3 of the Essential Commodites Act and C!ause-3 of the karnataka Pulses Dealers Licensing order, 1977, the State has come up with this appeal.

( 2 ) THE learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has acquitted the accused firstly on the ground thet the evidence is not satisfactory and secondly on the ground the search conducted by the police was illegal. The learned Magistrate has observed thet police has no such powers of search. In reaching thet conclusion he has referred to Rule 17 (1) of the order, whereunder the Government has authorised certain authorities to make such search for securing compliance of the order. The evidence given by PWs-1 to 4 is highly discrepant in relation to the details of the seizure effected. Besides, neither any case itself was registered bafore making search nor the permission of the Magistrate was taken for making search, muchless the information received, said to be reliable, had been recorded. He had proceeded to make search even without recording in writing the ground




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