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

1958 Supreme(All) 184

SRIVASTAVA, M.L.CHATURVEDI, B.R.JAMES
BHAGWATI SARAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U. P. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
J.N.AGARWAL

SRIVASTAVA, J.


( 1 ) THIS is a reference made by the learned Sessions Judge of Sultanpur.

( 2 ) ON a report dated the 20th August, 1955, submitted by the Station Officer, Kotwali, Sultanpur, a charge has been framed against Bhagwat Saran and Srimati Sushila Devi under Section 7 of the essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946 read with Section 11 B (3) of the Iron and steel (Control of Production and Distribution) Order, 1941. The allegation is that they sold iron and steel goods at a price higher than the controlled price.

( 3 ) THE accused went up in revision against the order framing the charge to the Sessions Judge and raised two points. The first point was that the learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the offence alleged as the report on the basis of which cognizance was taken did not contain sufficient materials as required by Section 11 of the Essential Supplies Act. The second point was that no maximum price having been fixed, there was no question of the accused having sold iron and steel at a price higher than the controlled price.

( 4 ) THE first contention found favour with the learned Sessions Judge but the second did not. In respect of the secon













































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