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.

Baijnath and ors. Vs. the State

Baijnath and ors. vs The State

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Aug 29, 1952
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/499129

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
Madhya Pradesh 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

Baijnath and ors.

Respondent

The State

Legal References

Cases Referred
Panna Lal v. The State
Reported In
1953CriLJ1389

Excerpt

- .....judge of guna affirmed the convictions and sentences but set aside the order of the trial magistrate with regard to the forfeiture of the carts. the applicants have now come up in revision to this court.2. the charge against the applicants was that on the morning of 20.12.50 they exported from village nand pura in madhya bharat to jhansi in uttar pradesh in four carts 47 maunds and nine seers of tilli and one maund of urad without a permit in that behalf from the competent authority and thus contravened notification issued under section 9 of the act and published in the madhya bharat gazette dated 14.8.48. it is said that under this notification the export of urad and tilli without a permit was prohibited.3. the convictions and sentences of the applicants must be set aside for the sole reason that the notification of which they are alleged to have committed a breach was never produced in the case and has not been proved. it has already been pointed out by a division bench in the case of - the state v. bachu lal (a) and also by a single bench in - panna lal v. the state air 1953 madh b 84 (b) that judicial notice of notifications such is the one in the present case cannot be taken. such notifications must be produced and proved in accordance with the provisions of the evidence act. i must observe that i cannot view with the equanimity the tendency prevailing in the lower courts of just taking it for granted that a notification of which the accused persons are alleged to have contravened exists.4. for the above reasons this petition is accepter! and the convictions and sentences awarded to the applicants are set aside. the amount of fine, if already paid, be refunded to them.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Dixit, J.

1. The applicants before me were tried by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Picher of an offence under Section 46(1), 'Ayat Niryat Kar Vidhan' (Import Export Taxation Act.) and found guilty. They were each sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to a fine of Rs. 50/-. The learned Magistrate also passed an order confiscating to the State the carts said to have been employed by the applicant in the commission of the offence. In appeal the learned Sessions Judge of Guna affirmed the convictions and sentences but set aside the order of the trial Magistrate with regard to the forfeiture of the carts. The applicants have now come up in revision to this Court.

2. The charge against the applicants was that on the morning of 20.12.50 they exported from village Nand Pura in Madhya Bharat to Jhansi in Uttar Pradesh in four carts 47 maunds and nine seers of Tilli and one maund of Urad without a permit in that behalf from the competent authority and thus contravened Notification issued under Section 9 of the Act and published in the Madhya Bharat Gazette dated 14.8.48. It is said that under this Notification the export of Urad and Tilli without a permit was prohibited.

3. The convictions and sentences of the applicants must be set aside for the sole reason that the Notification of which they are alleged to have committed a breach was never produced in the case and has not been proved. It has already been pointed out by a Division Bench in the case of - The State v. Bachu Lal (A) and also by a Single Bench in - Panna Lal v. The State AIR 1953 Madh B 84 (B) that judicial notice of notifications such is the one in the present case cannot be taken. Such notifications must be produced and proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act. I must observe that I cannot view with the equanimity the tendency prevailing in the lower Courts of just taking it for granted that a notification of which the accused persons are alleged to have contravened exists.

4. For the above reasons this petition is accepter! and the convictions and sentences awarded to the applicants are set aside. The amount of fine, if already paid, be refunded to them.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial