Rameshwar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand

Rameshwar Singh vs State of Jharkhand

Disposition Petition allowed Court Jharkhand Decided Nov 10, 2006

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/523283

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/523283
Court: Jharkhand High Court
Judge: D.K. Sinha, J.
Decided On: Nov 10, 2006
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Petition allowed

Case Summary

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

- MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 [C.A. No. 59/1988]Section 173(1) Proviso; [D. Biswas, Amitava Roy & I.A.Ansari, JJ] Appeal without statutory deposit but within limitation/or extended period of limitation Maintainability - Held, If the provision of a statute speaks of entertainment of appeal, it denotes that the appeal ...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Petition allowed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Rameshwar Singh

Respondent

State of Jharkhand

Legal References

Reported In: [2007(2)JCR278(Jhr)]

Excerpt

.....deposit but within limitation/or extended period of limitation maintainability - held, if the provision of a statute speaks of entertainment of appeal, it denotes that the appeal cannot be admitted to consideration unless other requirements are complied with. the provision of sub-section (1) of section 173 permits filing of an appeal against an award within 90 days with a rider in the first proviso that such appeal filed cannot be entertained unless the statutory deposit is made. the period of limitation is applicable only to the filing of the appeal and not to the deposit to be made. it, therefore, appears that an appeal filed under section 173 cannot be entertained i.e. cannot be admitted for consideration unless the statutory deposit is made and for this purpose the court has the discretion either to grant time to make the deposit or not. no formal order condoning the delay is necessary, an order of adjournment would suffice. the provisions of limitation embodied in the substantive provision of the sub-section (1) of section 173 of the act does not extend to the provision relating to the deposit of statutory amount as embodies in the first proviso. therefore an appeal filed within the period of limitation or within the extended period of limitation, cannot be admitted for hearing on merit unless the statutory deposit is made either with the memo of appeal or on such date as may be permitted by the court. no specific order condoning any delay for the purpose of deposit under first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 173 is necessary. [new india assurance co. ltd. v md. makubur rahman, 1993 (2) glr 430 and new india assurance co. ltd. v smt rita devi, 1997(2) glt 406, approved. new india assurance co. ltd. v birendra mohan de, 1995 (2) gau lt 218 (db) and union of india v smt gita banik, 1996 (2) glt 246, are not good law]. - 4. from perusal of the cognizance order as well as the order impugned passed by the learned s......out the contravention of any provision of control order as framed under section 3 of the essential commodities act which is liable for punishment under section 7 of the e.c. act, nor it has been pointed out by the cognizance taking court as to which control order has been violated by the petitioner. the allegation was that the packets of rice were being taken to be sold in the black-market and for such allegation the cognizance of such offence is required to be taken by the special court constituted for it. it is not the allegation that the packets of rice which were seized were earmarked for the distribution through the public distribution system rather one thakur singh has claimed the rice packets to be his own and that thakur singh had filed a petition for the release of his rice packets. moreover, the government by notification has lifted the control from the rice of its sale, purchase and transportation.5. in the facts and circumstances, the cognizance taken of the offence under section 7 of the e.c. act and charge proposed to be framed against the petitioner under the same section of e.c. act is not sustainable and, therefore, the petitioner rameshwar singh is discharged in jaridih p.s. case no. 116/2005 for the alleged offence under section 7 e.c. act and this petition is allowed.

Full Judgment

ORDER

D.K. Sinha, J.

1. The present Cr. Revision has been directed against the order impugned dated 28.6.2006 passed by the S.D.J.M., Bermo at Tenughat in Jaridih P.S. Case No. 116/2005 corresponding to T.R. No. 1075(A)/2006 whereby and whereunder the petition filed by the petitioner for his discharge under Section 239, Cr PC was rejected and charge was directed to be framed under Section 7 of the E.C. Act against the petitioner and three other accused.

2. Heard Shri Rajesh Kumar Mehta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner. None appeared on behalf of the State.

3. The prosecution story in brief is that a Truck No. B.R.-36- 5525 was intercepted by the police and Supply Inspector carrying 119 packets of rice containing 50 K.G. in each packet to the total 59.50 quintals. The truck was intercepted near the house of the petitioner Rameshwar Singh a licensee under Public Distribution System at Langtatarn. His ration shop was found closed without display of the stock position of the food-grains in the display-board. One Satyanarayan Gupta was found sitting in the truck who disclosed that the packets containing rice belonged to the petitioner and the prosecution party had therefore, reason to believe that 119 packets of rice which were seized were being taken to be sold in the black-market. The police after investigation submitted charges-sheet against as many as 4 accused persons including the petitioner at Sl. No. 1 and the cognizance of the offence was taken under Section 7 of the E.C. Act.

4. From perusal of the cognizance order as well as the order impugned passed by the learned S.D.J.M, Bermo at Tenughat in Jaridih P.S. Case No. 116/2005 whereby the discharge petition of the petitioner was rejected, neither the police has pointed out the contravention of any provision of control order as framed under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act which is liable for punishment under Section 7 of the E.C. Act, nor it has been pointed out by the cognizance taking Court as to which control order has been violated by the petitioner. The allegation was that the packets of rice were being taken to be sold in the black-market and for such allegation the cognizance of such offence is required to be taken by the Special Court constituted for it. It is not the allegation that the packets of rice which were seized were earmarked for the distribution through the Public Distribution System rather One Thakur Singh has claimed the rice packets to be his own and that Thakur Singh had filed a petition for the release of his rice packets. Moreover, the Government by notification has lifted the control from the rice of its sale, purchase and transportation.

5. In the facts and circumstances, the cognizance taken of the offence under Section 7 of the E.C. Act and charge proposed to be framed against the petitioner under the same Section of E.C. Act is not sustainable and, therefore, the petitioner Rameshwar Singh is discharged in Jaridih P.S. Case No. 116/2005 for the alleged offence under Section 7 E.C. Act and this petition is allowed.

Same Court & Year Jharkhand · 2006 Same Parties Rameshwar Singh vs State of Jharkhand Same Subject Criminal Same Judge D.K. Sinha, J.

Criminal