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

1967 Supreme(All) 167

SATISHCHANDRA
Kishori Lal Bihani – Appellant
Versus
The Addl. Collector and District Magistrate, Kanpur – Respondent


Advocates:
J. Swaroop, V. Swaroop and Subodh Markandey, for Petitioner, Standing Counsel, for Respondents.

ORDER :- Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, authorises the Collector to order the confiscation of foodgrains, edible oilseeds or edible oils in pursuance of an order made under Section 3 of that Act if he is satisfied that there has been a contravention of such order. For the same contravention the dealer is liable to be punished under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act to the punishments mentioned therein. (Sic) Under clause (b) of Sec. 7(1) any property in respect of which the order has been contravened or such part thereof as the Court may deem fit shall be forfeited to the Government. Under the proviso the Court can refrain from directing the forfeiture of the seized property if it is of the opinion that it is unnecessary to direct it.

2. The question is whether the contravention spoken of in section 6-A has the same legal incidence and consequences and has the same nature and character as the contravention made punishable by section 7. In Nathu Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1966 SC 43 the Supreme Court held that mens rea was an essential ingredient of an offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. An intentional contravention of an










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