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

2000 Supreme(MP) 643

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
R. S. GARG
DINESH KUMAR DUBEY - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF M.P. - Respondents
M. CRI. C. 3530 Of 2000
Decided On : 07/26/2000

Advocates Appeared:
Ajay Tamrakar, G.S.AHLUVALIA, SHIMLA JAIN

Interpretation of legal provisions under the Essential Commodities Act to determine the bailability of the offence

Headnote:

Essential Commodities Act - Interpretation of Legal Provisions

Fact of the Case:

The applicants filed a petition seeking anticipatory bail in connection with an offence under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the offence was bailable based on the interpretation of the legal provisions and directed the police to release the applicants on bail if arrested.

Issues: Interpretation of the Essential Commodities Act provisions, maintainability of the application for anticipatory bail

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the legal provisions of the Essential Commodities Act and concluded that the offence was bailable, thus making the application for anticipatory bail not maintainable.

Final Decision: The petition was disposed of, and the applicants were directed to be released on bail if arrested, or to appear before the special court with a copy of the court's order to furnish bail.

R. S. GARG, J.

( 1 ) ANTICIPATING arrest in connection with Crime No. 31/2000 registered at P. S. Umaria (Jabalpur) for offence punishable u/s. 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 the applicants have filed this petition u/s. 438, Cr. P. C.

( 2 ) IT appears that by the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act 1981 S. 10-A of the original Act of 1955 was amended and after the word 'cognizable', the words 'and non-bailable' were introduced. The said Act of 1981 was to remain in force for a period of five years only from the date of commencement of 1981 Act. Thereafter by the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Continuance Act 1987 para 2 of the preamble of 1981 to the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981 was amended and in place of five years period of 10 years was substituted. Thereafter by Third Amendment, the said period of continuance was made for fifteen years. After expiry of fifteen years no amendment Act was brought into force but certain ordinances were issued. The last of the ordinance was issued in the year 1988, which lost its life and efficacy by lapse of time thereafter no Act or ordinances have been issued to continue the provisions of 1981 Act. Learned counsel for the State was given opportunity to go through the provisions of law and report to the Court as to whether after 1988 any further Act has been brought in existence or any other ordinance was issued to continue the effect of 1981 Act. Learned counsel for the State submits that despite his best efforts he could not find any other Act or ordinance which continues the effect and operation of 1981 Act.

( 3 ) IF 1981 Act has lost its life then any amendment incorporated by the said Act, which was to remain in force for a period of five, ten, or fifteen years would come to an end and additional words;"and non bailable" shall become non-est and otios. Section 10-A without the said amendment shall now be read as "notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 every offence punishable under the Act shall be 'cognizable'. "

( 4 ) IN view of the above legal provisions the offence is not non-bailable. Cognizance of such an offence can be taken but in the absence of any other provisions showing the offence to be non-bailable, the offence would continue to be bailable in view of Schedule-II to the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973.

( 5 ) AS the offence is bailable, an application under S. 438, Cr. P. C. would not be maintainable. However, taking into consideration that the police and the administration is not likely to know about these provisions and the interpretation, it is hereby directed that because the offences are bailable, in the event of the arrest of the applicants the officer arresting the applicants shall release them on bail treating the offence to be bailable. In the alternative, the applicants may appear before the special Court alongwith the copy of this Order and furnish bail to the satisfaction of the said Court.

( 6 ) THE petition is accordingly disposed of. C. C. be supplied today. Order accordingly.


.

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 Back to top