Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Naresh Kumar Vs. State of U.P.

Naresh Kumar vs State of U.P.

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Jul 16, 1980
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/477880

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Allahabad High Court
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

-

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Naresh Kumar

Respondent

State of U.P.

Legal References

Reported In
1981CriLJ378

Excerpt

- orderb.n. katju, j.1. the applicant was convicted under section 3/7 of the essential commodities act and sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of rs. 500 and in default to undergo two months' rigorous imprisonment by the magistrate first class, meerut by his judgment dated 24-1-1975 passed in case no. 132. he filed criminal appeal no. 25 of 1975 which was dismissed by the iii additional sessions judge, meerut by his judgment dated 11-11-1978 which runs as follows:this appeal has been filed against the order dated 24-1-1975 passed by s. n. gupta, magistrate 1st class convicting the appellant under section 3/7 of the essential commodities act to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of rs. 500 or to undergo r. i. for two months.the prosecution story was that on 16-6-78 at about 7-30 p.m. the accused was found carrying 10 quintals of wheat in two buggies from tahsil baghpat towards meerut without any licence or permit, thereby contravening the provisions of clause 8 of u.p. wheat and wheat products (regulation of trade and control of movement) order, 1973. the accused was sent up to trial. the learned magistrate found him guilty and sentenced him. aggrieved by that order, the present appeal has been filed.the appellant did not turn up on the date of hearing. the appeal was heard i.e. i have heard the learned counsel for the state and have also gone through the record. the finding appears to be justified on the basis of record. there is nothing which may warrant any interference by this court. so the findings of fact are confirmed. the appeal has no substance and merits dismissal.

Full Judgment

ORDER

B.N. Katju, J.

1. The applicant was convicted under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act and sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and a fine of Rs. 500 and in default to undergo two months' rigorous imprisonment by the Magistrate First Class, Meerut by his judgment dated 24-1-1975 passed in case No. 132. He filed Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 1975 which was dismissed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut by his judgment dated 11-11-1978 which runs as follows:

This appeal has been filed against the order dated 24-1-1975 passed by S. N. Gupta, Magistrate 1st Class convicting the appellant under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 or to undergo R. I. for two months.

The prosecution story was that on 16-6-78 at about 7-30 p.m. the accused was found carrying 10 quintals of wheat in two buggies from Tahsil Baghpat towards Meerut without any licence or permit, thereby contravening the provisions of Clause 8 of U.P. Wheat and Wheat Products (Regulation of Trade and Control of Movement) Order, 1973. The accused was sent up to trial. The learned Magistrate found him guilty and sentenced him. Aggrieved by that order, the present appeal has been filed.

The appellant did not turn up on the date of hearing. The appeal was heard i.e. I have heard the learned Counsel for the State and have also gone through the record. The finding appears to be justified on the basis of record. There is nothing which may warrant any interference by this Court. So the findings of fact are confirmed. The appeal has no substance and merits dismissal.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial