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

2001 Supreme(P&H) 333

V.M.JAIN
Som Nath – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent


Judgment

1. This is a petition under S. 438, Cr. P.C. filed by the accused petitioner, seeking grant of anticipatory bail in a case bearing FIR No. 189 dated 14-10-2000 under S. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as Act), recorded in PS Sadar, Panipat.

2. At the outset the question arose as to whether the offence under S. 7 of the Act is bailable or non-bailable. Hence the learned counsel for the parties were directed to address their arguments on this question.

3. After hearing the counsel for the parties and after perusing the record, it transpires that S. 7 of the Act, as it stood prior to the amendment of the said Act by virtue of the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981, would be relevant in this regard. It transpired that under S. 10-A of the Act, as it stood prior to 1981 amendment, every offence punishable under the said Act was cognizable. Subsequently, by virtue of 1981 Amendment Act, the words "and non-bailable" were inserted. Initially, this was done for a period of 5 years from the date of commencement of 1981 Amendment Act (1st September, 1982). Later on, this period of 5 years was enhanced to 10 years. Later on this perio





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