The State Vs. Ishar Das

The State vs ishar Das

Disposition Appeal allowed Court Punjab and Haryana Decided Mar 08, 1956

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/612627

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/612627
Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Judge: Falshaw and; Kapur, JJ.
Decided On: Mar 08, 1956
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 657 of 1954
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Appeal allowed

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
Outcome / disposition: Appeal allowed
Acts & sections: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 263 and 264; Punjab Pure Food Act, 1929 - Sections 13; Punjab Pure Food Rules, 1930 - Rule 3; Punjab Pure Food (Amendment) Rules, 1952

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

The State

Advocate K.S. Chawla, Asst. Adv. General

Respondent

ishar Das

Advocate H.R. Sodhi, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 263 and 264; Punjab Pure Food Act, 1929 - Sections 13; Punjab Pure Food Rules, 1930 - Rule 3; Punjab Pure Food (Amendment) Rules, 1952
Cases Referred: Emperor v. Akbarali
Reported In: AIR1956P& H160; 1956CriLJ918

Excerpt

.....original 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. .....was a case which came to the chief court on a reference, taut with respect i am unable to agree with the reasons given in that judgment, and moreover in the present case there is nothing to show whether any evidence was recorded by the learned magistrate or considered by him.in 'aiunddi sheikh v. queen empress', 27 cal 450 (b), it was held that though a case had been tried in a summary way, it was incumbent upon the magistrate to put on record sufficient evidence to justify his order, and in -- 'emperor v. akbarali', 1934 oudh 177 (2) (air v 21) (c), a similar view was taken.in my opinion and i say so with deferenre that the view taken in the calcutta and the oudh cases is correct and would apply to the facts of the present case. the section which applies to the facts of the present case is 264 and not 283, criminal p. c., because under section 414, criminal p. c., no appeal lies from summary conviction where the sentence is a fine not exceeding rs. 200/-. i would, therefore, overrule the submission of the counsel for the respondent.4. in regard to the rules the addition of the words 'and more than 20 per cent. of stalks' by notification no. 13747-3hb-52/35720, dated 29-12-1952, must be read disjunctively and not conjunctively, and in my opinion this plea is also not available to the accused.5. as there has been no proper trial in the present case, i would allow the appeal, set aside the order of acquittal and send back the case to the. learned magistrate to try it in accordance with law.falshaw, j.6. i agree.

Full Judgment

Kapur, J.

1. This is an appeal against acquittal of Ishar Das under Section 13 of the Punjab Pure Food Act.

2. On 11-3-1954 the Food Inspector took a sample of tea from the shop of Ishar Das out of a container which had about 100 lbs. of tea and had no label that the tea was adulterated as required under the provision of Rule 18. That sample was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis and he found stalks to be 38 per cent. which is more than 20 per cent. as is provided under the amended rules made on 29-12-1952.

It appears that no evidence was recorded because nothing is shown in the extract from the summary register under the column 'summary of evidence for prosecution' and the whole of the judgment of the learned Magistrate consists of these words:

'No case made out under Section 13, Punjab Pure Food Act. Acquitted.'

As I have said, it is not shown in the extract from the summary register as to what the summary of the Evidence of the prosecution witnesses or the other witnesses was. There is nothing from which the appellate Court can come to the conclusion as to what the evidence was and why the accused has been acquitted.

3. Counsel for the accused made two submissions. One was that no reasons need be given when the Magistrate acquits. They are only required when he convicts and the learned counsel relied upon -- 'Emperor v. Sugnomal Bhojraj', 1942 Sind 52 (AIR V 29) (A). That was a case which came to the Chief Court on a reference, taut with respect I am unable to agree with the reasons given in that judgment, and moreover in the present case there is nothing to show whether any evidence was recorded by the learned Magistrate or considered by him.

In 'Aiunddi Sheikh v. Queen Empress', 27 Cal 450 (B), It was held that though a case had been tried in a summary way, it was incumbent upon the Magistrate to put on record sufficient evidence to Justify his order, and in -- 'Emperor v. Akbarali', 1934 Oudh 177 (2) (AIR V 21) (C), a similar view was taken.

In my opinion and I say so with deferenre that the view taken in the Calcutta and the Oudh cases is correct and would apply to the facts of the present case. The section which applies to the facts of the present case is 264 and not 283, Criminal P. C., because under Section 414, Criminal P. C., no appeal lies from summary conviction where the sentence is a fine not exceeding Rs. 200/-. I would, therefore, overrule the submission of the counsel for the respondent.

4. In regard to the rules the addition of the words 'and more than 20 per cent. of stalks' by Notification No. 13747-3HB-52/35720, dated 29-12-1952, must be read disjunctively and not conjunctively, and in my opinion this plea is also not available to the accused.

5. As there has been no proper trial In the present case, I would allow the appeal, set aside the order of acquittal and send back the case to the. learned Magistrate to try it in accordance with law.

Falshaw, J.

6. I agree.

Same Parties The State vs ishar Das Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Falshaw and; Kapur, JJ. Acts & Sections Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 263 and 2...

Criminal