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

2026 Supreme(Ker) 105

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, P.V.BALAKRISHNAN
State Of Kerala Represented By The Secretary, Food And Civil Supplies Department – Appellant
Versus
Niradeepam Roller Flour Mill – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Spl. Government Pleader Sri Renjith S
For the Respondent: Sri.Sanil Jose, Sri.Bonny Benny, Sri.P.G. Sudheesh, Sri.K.P. Antony Binu, Shri.Amaljith

Judgement Key Points

The ratio of the judgment is that an acquittal in a criminal trial does not automatically entitle the respondent to claim compensation under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act unless the specific statutory pre-conditions for such compensation are met. The court clarified that the benefit under Section 6C(2) of the Act is only applicable when the acquittal pertains to an offence under Section 6A of the Act, which involves the contravention leading to confiscation. In this case, since the respondent was acquitted of charges under Section 3(1) of the Act and not under Section 6A, the statutory conditions for invoking Section 6C(2) were not satisfied. Consequently, the court held that the respondent was only entitled to the proceeds from the sale of the seized commodity under the applicable sections, and not to any additional compensation or interest under Section 6C(2).


Table of Content
1. description of case facts and context. (Para 1 , 3 , 4)
2. arguments presented by both parties. (Para 5 , 6)
3. court's analysis of statutory provisions. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
4. court's rationale regarding statutory applicability. (Para 10 , 12)
5. final ruling and conclusion of the court. (Para 13 , 14)

JUDGMENT :

The present intra-court appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 assails the judgment dated 08.04.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No. 31340 of 2019, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent was allowed.

Facts

3.1 Pursuant to the confiscation, prosecution was launched against the managing partner of the respondent, alleging offences under Section 3 (1) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Clause 5A of the Kerala Rationing Order, 1966 . Crime No. 247/2007 was registered against the managing partner and a charge sheet was filed. C.C. No. 656/2007 was tried before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court–I, Changanacherry, which resulted in the acquittal of the firm and the managing partner vide judgment dated 13.03.2015.

“(i) call for records leading to passing of Ext.P7 order and quash the same by the issuance of a writ of certiorari;

(iii) iss

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