Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
ABDUL SHAHID
Pitambar Das – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ABDUL SHAHID, J.
1. Heard Sri Amrendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, and the learned A.G.A. for the State. The record has been perused.
2. The present criminal appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant, Pitambar Das, against the impugned judgment and order dated 20.05.1988 passed by the learned Special Judge, E.C. Act, Budaun, in Special Trial Case No. 8 of 1987 (State vs. Pitambar Das), whereby he has been convicted and sentenced to undergo two years’ rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- under Sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
3. The basic prosecution case is that the accused, Pitambar Das, was challenged by the police of Bisauli to stand trial for the offence punishable under Sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to, for the sake of convenience, as the “Act, 1955”), on the allegation that he was storing 12 quintals of wheat for illegal purposes. This was detected during an inspection conducted by Sri S.P. Dasmana, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bisauli, on 30.05.1984 at the Purchasing Centre of the U.P. Food Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as the “Purchasing Centre”
Strict adherence to statutory requirements under the Essential Commodities Act is essential for lawful operation, and failure to comply can lead to conviction.
Proof beyond reasonable doubt is required for conviction under the Essential Commodities Act, and mere assumptions or procedural lapses invalidate the prosecution's case.
The prosecution must prove that the accused violated the provisions of the relevant order, and in the absence of statutory presumption, factual presumption should not be drawn.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the violation of the Essential Commodities Act and the West Bengal Declaration of stocks and prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1977, due to....
The prosecution must prove intentional violation of regulations, and mere ownership does not imply liability when the owner is incapacitated.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
