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

1949 Supreme(Ori) 42

RAY
FAKIR MOHAMMAD – Appellant
Versus
KING – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
P.V.B.RAO

RAY, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS arises out of a rule issued against an order of conviction passed by the sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ghumusur Division and confirmed by the learned sessions Judge of Ganjam. The conviction is under Section 7 of the Essential supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946 (Act No. XXIV (24) of 1946), for purported contravention of an order purporting to have been passed under section 3 of the Act by the Sub Divisional Magistrate of Ghumsur Division. (I do not like to discriminate between Sub Divisional Magistrate and Sub-Divisional officer as both the terms are understood as meaning the same officer.) The order was to the effect that the petitioner should supply a certain quantity of paddy at certain price. The petitioner's defence was that he had not the requisite stock with him. In this respect, the finding is against him. The finding has, no doubt, been arrived at in the most queer manner. It has been said he possesses so many acres of lands and each acre must have or might have produced paddy at such and such rate, and his family expenses, being a family consisting of six members, must not exceed certain quantity or extent, and according to mathematical calculation,
















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