Munshi and ors. Vs. State of M.P.

Munshi and ors. vs State of M.P.

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Nov 30, 2007

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/511586

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/511586
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Judge: S.C. Vyas, J.
Decided On: Nov 30, 2007
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

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

- Section 2(f): [Dipak Misra, K.K. Lahoti & Rajendra Menon, JJ] Service Tax - Packaging and bottling of liquor whether amounts to manufacture within meaning of Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act 1944? Finance Act 932 of 1994), Section 65 (76 b) (as amended on 16.6.2005) - Held, The first limb of the inclusive defi...

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Munshi and ors.

Respondent

State of M.P.

Legal References

Reported In: 2008(2)MPHT447

Excerpt

- section 2(f): [dipak misra, k.k. lahoti & rajendra menon, jj] service tax - packaging and bottling of liquor whether amounts to manufacture within meaning of section 2(f) of central excise act 1944? finance act 932 of 1994), section 65 (76 b) (as amended on 16.6.2005) - held, the first limb of the inclusive definition of the manufacture under section 2(f) of central excise act has a very wide connotation. as the definition clause lays down an inclusive facet, the term manufacture has to be construed in a natural and plain manner and would include any process incidental or ancillary to the completion of a manufactured product. keeping in view the context in which the term manufacture has been used, it would take in its fold incidental and ancillary process in the manufacture or finishing of any manufactured product. it does not leave any room for doubt that an allied process should be integral and inextricable part of manufacture of completeness and presentability of the manufactured product. section 65(76b) of finance act used the words but it does not include. thus it is a definition which has the inclusive as well as exclusive facet. by virtue of the same it may include certain things and exclude others. it is well settled principle of law that a definition is not to be read in isolation and has to read in context of phrase which it defines, releasing that function of a definition is to give precision and certainty to the word or phrase which would otherwise be vague and uncertain. regard being had to the exclusionary fact in the finance act, though a limited one it would exclude the manufacturing process as defined under section 2(f) of the 1944 act. keeping in view the aforesaid dictionary clauses and circulars issued by the c.b.e.c. it is quite luminescent that would manufacture has to be understood in a broader sense and not to be confined or restricted to the excisable product in the act. it would include all processes which amount to manufacture..........present petitioners clearly appears discriminating and is liable to be quashed on this ground alone.5. apart from this a temporary custody was ' sought and prima facie it was found that present petitioners are the rightful owners of the catties then they should not have been asked to deposit the value of the catties, because when they themselves are prima facie rightful owners of the catties and no one else has claimed the custody, then the catties should have been given in temporary custody to the present petitioners after obtaining proper security and no more than that. it is apparent that the condition imposed by learned trial court is extremely harsh and it is not possible to comply such condition and to deposit thousands of rupees for taking the catties even in temporary custody.6. therefore, on both the grounds the petition succeeds and is allowed. the condition imposed by the revisional court for depositing the cash amount is hereby quashed and at the place of this condition petitioners are permitted to produce solvent security of that amount to the satisfaction of the concerning court.7. with these directions the petition is disposed of.

Full Judgment

ORDER

S.C. Vyas, J.

1. The short question which is involved in this petition is only this that whether a condition of depositing value of the catties in cash can be imposed while handing over the catties in temporary custody under Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr. PC.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that Additional Sessions Judge, Mandsaur allowed the Criminal Revision Nos. 275/07 and 278/07 moved by the present petitioners for temporary custody of the catties to be handed over to the present petitioners but at the same time has also imposed a condition that Rs. 3000/- for each cattle should be deposited by the present petitioners in the Court in cash. He submitted that this condition is quite harsh and it is not possible for the petitioners to comply this condition and to deposit the entire amount in cash. He submitted that in a subsequent order which has been passed regarding temporary custody of some other catties, which were seized in the same crime, such condition was not imposed and therefore the order impugned is discriminating and is liable to be quashed. He has drawn attention of this Court towards the order dated 22-9-07 passed in Criminal Revision No. 286/07 by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Mandsaur.

3. It appears that Crime No. 220/07 has been registered by police YD Nagar, Mandsaur in respect of the same catties and the catties were seized and offence was registered under different sections of Madhya Pradesh Krishi Pashu Parikshan Adhiniyam, Madhya Pradesh Gowansh Pratishedh Adhiniyam as well as Prevention of Cruelty on Animals Act, etc. Present petitioners claimed temporary custody of the catties on the ground that they are the rightful owners. Earlier their application was dismissed by Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class and criminal revision preferred by them was allowed and the catties were ordered to be given in temporary custody to the present petitioners. In that order of temporary custody the condition which has been challenged in this petition has been imposed.

4. From the perusal of the order passed in two different criminal revision by the two different Court of Sessions, in respect of same crime number clearly shows that in the subsequent order no such condition of depositing cash amount has been imposed and therefore the order which has been passed in respect of the present petitioners clearly appears discriminating and is liable to be quashed on this ground alone.

5. Apart from this a temporary custody was ' sought and prima facie it was found that present petitioners are the rightful owners of the catties then they should not have been asked to deposit the value of the catties, because when they themselves are prima facie rightful owners of the catties and no one else has claimed the custody, then the catties should have been given in temporary custody to the present petitioners after obtaining proper security and no more than that. It is apparent that the condition imposed by learned Trial Court is extremely harsh and it is not possible to comply such condition and to deposit thousands of rupees for taking the catties even in temporary custody.

6. Therefore, on both the grounds the petition succeeds and is allowed. The condition imposed by the Revisional Court for depositing the cash amount is hereby quashed and at the place of this condition petitioners are permitted to produce solvent security of that amount to the satisfaction of the concerning Court.

7. With these directions the petition is disposed of.

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2007 Same Parties Munshi and ors. vs State of M.P. Same Subject Criminal Same Judge S.C. Vyas, J.

Criminal