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

1984 Supreme(Pat) 5

R.N.PRASAD, NAGENDRA PRASAD SINGH
Jhabarmal Mukim – Appellant
Versus
State Of Bihar – Respondent


Judgment

N.P.SINGH and R.N.PRASAD JJ.

1. This writ application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for quashing a notice issued to the petitioner by the Deputy Commissioner, Santhal Parganas, in purported exercise of the powers confirmed on him by Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). The Deputy Commissioner has required the petitioner to show cause as to why the foodgrains mentioned in the said notice be not confiscated in accordance with the provisions of Section 6-A of the Act. A copy of that notice is Annexure 1 to the writ application.

2. Section 6-A of the Act vests powers in the Collector to pass an order confiscating the essential commodity which has been seized, for contravention of an order made under Section 3 of the Act.

3. On behalf of the petitioner it was submitted that an order of confiscation under Section 6-A aforesaid amounts to punishment or penalty, and, as such, any such order can be passed by a Judicial Magistrate and not by an Executive Magistrate, in view of Section 3 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Code). Section 3 (4) of the Code is as follows :

"(4)
















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