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

1997 Supreme(Pat) 38

R.N.SAHAY
Hindustan Agencies – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent


Judgment

K. N. sanay, J.

1. Heard.

2. The petitioner is a proprietory firm dealing in fertilizer. The petitioner had licence for dealing in fertiliser under Fertilizer Control Act, 1985. This order is a Central order.

3. It appears that by notification dated 16th April, 1986, the State government authorised certain authorities including B. D. O. under clause 27 of the order which states that the State Government or the Central government may by notification in the official gazette appoint such number of persons, as it thinks necessary, to be Inspectors of fertilisers for the purpose of this Order.

4. In the instant case, on 8-9-1992 the petitioners premises was inspected and detected some discrepancies in the stock register. According to the petitioner although he obtained licence on 8-9-1w2 but had not started business when the search was made. The shop of the petitioner was closed. The fertiliser of the petitioner was seized by the B. D. O. The prosecution was launched under Sec.1 of the E. C. Act.

5. It appears that the Central government amended the Fertiliser order by S. O.261 (E), dated 16th April, 1991 and the following clause was inserted after Clause 27 of the Order-

"27-A.



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