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

2000 Supreme(Cal) 39

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Pradyot Kumar Sen, J.
Anjan Nandi – Petitioner
Versus
State of West Bengal – Opposite Party
C.R.R. No. 2155 of 1999
Decided On: January 20, 2000

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Debabrata Banerjee & Sandip Ganguly for the Petitioner.
Mr. Tapas Midya for the State.

The legal principle established is that the classification of a commodity as essential under the Essential Commodities Act and the existence of Control Orders are crucial factors in determining the applicability of the Act.

Headnote:

Essential Commodities Act - Quashing of proceeding - Cement

Fact of the Case:

The accused filed an application to quash the proceeding against him under Section 7(i) (a) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, alleging that he did not display the stocks and price of Cement, which was considered a violation of the Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that Cement was no longer considered an essential commodity and therefore did not fall under the purview of the Essential Commodities Act. The court also noted that the Control Order had been rescinded, leading to the quashing of the proceeding.

Issues: The main issue was whether the accused's failure to display the stock and price of Cement constituted a violation of the Essential Commodities Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the fact that Cement was no longer classified as an essential commodity and that the Control Order had been rescinded, rendering the proceeding unnecessary.

Final Decision: The proceeding against the accused was quashed, and the accused was released from his bail bond. The seized Cement was also ordered to be released.

JUDGMENT

1. This application under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. is at the instance of the accused and is for quashing of the proceeding which was started against him under Section 7(i) (a) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act.

2. Upon information and on raiding it was found that this petitioner did not display the stocks and price of Cement and as such F.I.R. was lodged alleging offence' that he did not display the stock board and as such there was violation of Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act which was punishable under Section 7(i) (a) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act. Now the learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that Cement Control Act has since been rescinded and the same cannot be enforced under the Essential Commodities Act and so there was no necessity to keep the stock position displayed in the stock board and according to the learned Advocate there was no violation of Paragraph 3(2) of the West Bengal Declaration of Stock and Price of Essential Commodities Act, 1977. To constitute offence under this order there must be allegation that the person did not display the stock in the stock board and the item must be essential commodities. But, here I find that Cement is no longer essential commodities and therefore, it will not come under the purview of West Bengal Declaration of Stock and Price of Essential Commodities Order, 1977. Consequently, it will not come under the provision of Section 7(i) (a) (ii) of Essential Commodities Act. The learned Advocate for the petitioner also submits that it will be of no use to drag the proceeding further.

3. The learned Advocate appearing for the State submits that he wants to produce the Case Diary. But, in my opinion that very Case Diary cannot improve the position of the case. But, it being the question of law, the Case Diary cannot override the point of law. All that the Case Diary can show something about fact.

4. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has produced the original Gazette Notification which shows that the same Control Order has been rescinded with effect from 6th November, 1998.

5. In that view of the matter this proceeding is required to be quashed and it is accordingly quashed. Let copy of this order be sent down to the Special Judge, E.C. Act, Siliguri for information and necessary action.

6. With this observation the matter is disposed of.

7. Let the petitioner be released from his Bail bond.

8. The learned S.D.J.M. concerned is directed to make an order for release of the seized Cement.

Let urgent certified xerox copy of this order be handed over to the learned Advocate for the petitioner if the same is applied for.


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 Back to top