Sukh Lal Vs. the State

Sukh Lal vs The State

Type Court Judgment Court Punjab and Haryana Decided Oct 26, 1950

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/610289

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/610289
Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Judge: Harnam Singh, J.
Decided On: Oct 26, 1950
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

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

- Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent Appeal Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., - Held, After introduction of Section ...

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sukh Lal

Respondent

The State

Legal References

Reported In: 1951CriLJ186

Excerpt

.....or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a single judge of a high court, no further appeal shall lie. even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under section 2(9) means a statement given by a judge on the grounds of a decree or order. thus the contention that against an order passed by a single judge in an appeal filed under section 104 c.p.c., a further appeal lies to a division bench cannot be accepted. the newly incorporated section 100a in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a single judge to a division bench notwithstanding anything contained in the letters patent. the letters patent which provides for further appeal to a division bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a single judge. it has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an appeal to the high court. it has not made any provision for filing appeal to a division bench against the judgment or decree or order of a single judge. no letters patent appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a single judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a special act. sections 100-a [as inserted by act 22 of 2002] & 104:[dr. b.s. chauhan, cj, l. mohapatra & a.s. naidu, jj] writ appeal held, a writ appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by single judge in a writ petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india. in a writ application filed under articles 226 and 227 of constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under article 226, a writ appeal will lie. but, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge in exercising powers of superintendence under article 227 of the constitution. - ..........punjab state into the state of delhi. the relevant law is contained in section 7a of the act and article 3 (1) and 7, foodgrains movement control order, 1947, as amended by notfn. no. 5076-fp-49/24194 dated 4-7-1949, hereinafter referred to as the order. section 7a of the act reads :forfeiture of certain property used in the commission of the offence.-- wherever any offence relating to cotton textiles or foodstuffs which is punishable under sub-section (1) of section 7 has been committed, the court may. if the order made under section 3 so provides, direct that the packages, coverings or receptacles in which any property liable to be forfeited under the said subsection is found, and the animals, vehicles, vessels or other conveyances used in carrying the said property shall be forfeited to government.provided that no court trying an offence under this act shall declare any such package, covering, or receptacle or any such animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance forfeited to government unless it is proved that the owner thereof knew that the offence was being committed or was to be or was likely to be, committed.article 3 of the order roads :no person shall export or import any foodgrains except under and in accordance with a permit issued in that behalf by the director of food purchase.article 7 of the order amended by notfn. no. 507c-fp-49/24194 made on 4-7-1949 then provides :if any person contravenes the provisions of this order, then without prejudice to any other punishment to which he may bo liable any court trying the offence shall order that the stock or quantity of foodgrains, together with the packages and coverings thereof, and the animals, vehicles, vessels or other conveyances used in carrying foodgrains, in respeet of which the court is satisfied that the offence has been committed shall be forfeited to the government of east punjab unless for the reasons recorded in writing the court is of opinion that the direction should not be made in.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

Harnam Singh, J.

1. This order disposes of Cri, Revns. Nos. 510 to 514 of 1950.

2. In these proceedings Mr. Shamair Chand, learned Counsel for the convicts-petitioners urges that the confiscation of carts is not justified.

3. To appreciate the point arising in these cases it is necessary to mention that the convicts in all these cases have been convicted unders Section 7 of Act XXIV 24. of 1946 hereinafter referred to as the Act, for attempting to export without permit issued by the Director of Pood Purchases, gram from the Punjab State into the State of Delhi. The relevant law is contained in Section 7A of the Act and Article 3 (1) and 7, Foodgrains Movement Control Order, 1947, as amended by Notfn. No. 5076-FP-49/24194 dated 4-7-1949, hereinafter referred to as the order. Section 7A of the Act reads :

Forfeiture of certain property used in the commission of the offence.-- Wherever any offence relating to cotton textiles or foodstuffs which is punishable under Sub-section (1) of Section 7 has been committed, the Court may. if the order made under Section 3 so provides, direct that the packages, coverings or receptacles in which any property liable to be forfeited under the said subsection is found, and the animals, vehicles, vessels or other conveyances used in carrying the said property shall be forfeited to Government.

Provided that no Court trying an offence under this Act shall declare any such package, covering, or receptacle or any such animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance forfeited to Government unless it is proved that the owner thereof knew that the offence was being committed or was to be or was likely to be, committed.

Article 3 of the Order roads :

No person shall export or import any foodgrains except under and in accordance with a permit issued in that behalf by the Director of Food Purchase.

Article 7 of the Order amended by Notfn. No. 507C-FP-49/24194 made on 4-7-1949 then provides :

If any person contravenes the provisions of this Order, then without prejudice to any other punishment to which he may bo liable any Court trying the offence shall order that the stock or quantity of foodgrains, together with the packages and coverings thereof, and the animals, vehicles, vessels or other conveyances used in carrying foodgrains, in respeet of which the Court is satisfied that the offence has been committed shall be forfeited to the Government of East Punjab unless for the reasons recorded in writing the Court is of opinion that the direction should not be made in respect of the whole or as the case may be a part of the foodgrain.

4. From what I have said above it appears that it is discretionary with the Court under 3. 7A of the Act to direct the forfeiture of the animals, vehicles, vessels or other conveyances used in carrying the foodgrains in respect of which the offence has been committed.

5. Mr. Shamair Chand points out that in the case of Lakhi petitioner gram weighing 22 maunds 23 seers has been forfeited to the Government and Lakhi petitioner has undergone rigorous imprisonment for three months. The position in other cases is also similar. In sotting aside the order of forfeiture with regard to oxen the Court of appeal said :

The order of confiscation of the gram and the cart shall stand hut the oxen shall bo restored to the appellant to enable him to cultivate his land and earn, his livelihood,

16. Mr. Shamair Chani urges that no agriculturist can effectively cultivate his land and earn his livelihood if he does not possess a cart. Considering, then that the petitioners in the various cases have been sufficiently punished by the forfeiture of the foodgrains and the imprisonment imposed upon them, I think that the forfeiture of carts in cri. Revns. Nos. 510 to 514 should be set aside.

7. In the result, I allow the petitions and set aside the order of forfeiture of the cart in each case, cri Revns. Nos. 510 to 514.

8. In allowing these petitions I direct that the carts should be made over to the owners of those carts. In all other respects the orders passed in appeal are maintained.

Same Parties Sukh Lal vs The State Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Harnam Singh, J.

Criminal