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

1984 Supreme(Raj) 165

D.L.MEHTA
RAM PRASAD SHARMA AND SONS – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
M.I.KHAN, N.L.Tibrewal

Judgment


D. L. MEHTA, J.

( 1 ) THE Supply Officer, Dholpur lodged a complaint on 21st Feb 1983, under S. 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The said complaint was lodged before the Special Court constituted under the amended Act No. 18 of 1981, by which Special Courts were constituted. The petitioner preferred an application before the Special Court on 28th Feb. , 1983 and submitted that the Special Court is not competent to take cognizance especially in the light of the provisions of S. 12aa (1) (e ). Sub-sec (e) reads as under :-" (E) a Special Court, upon a perusal of police report of the facts constituting an offence under this Act take cognizance of that offence without the accused being committed to it for trial;"1a. The contention of the petitioner before the Court below was that no complaint can be entertained as provided under Sec. 11 after the amended Act No. 18 of 1981. The learned Addl. Session Judge (Special Court), Dholpur, vide his order dated 22nd June, 1984, held that he is competent to take cognizance under S. 11 of the Essential Commodities Act and S. 12-AA (1) (e), as amended by Act No. 18 of 1981, will not take away the jurisdiction vested in the Court under

















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