D.K. Gupta Vs. State

D.K. Gupta vs State

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Nov 06, 1987

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/690586

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/690586
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: D.P. Wadhwa, J.
Decided On: Nov 06, 1987
Case Number: Criminal Miscellaneous (Main) Appeal No. 1135 of 1987
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

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

Key legal issue: Criminal
Acts & sections: Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Sections 7; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 482

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

D.K. Gupta

Advocate O.P. Soni,; Kamlesh Dutt and; S.T. Singh, Advs

Respondent

State

Legal References

Acts: Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Sections 7; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 482
Reported In: 33(1987)DLT407

Excerpt

- .....supplying/selling the same to sat narain gupta, owner of kwalily sweets, greater kailash, new delhi. it is stated that the rasgullas in sealed tins were found at the shop of kwality sweets. the case vyas accordingly registered against the petitioner and also against sat narain gupta. the aforesaid control order was made for the purpose of maintaining and increasing supplies of milk for securing it equitable distribution in the union territory of delhi. prohibition was imposed for use of milk for manufacturing of khoya, rabari and paneer or any such sweets in the preparation of which milk or any of its products was the ingredient. there is also prohibition against possession, selling or serving such type of items and again to their export. (2) it is contended by mr. soni, learned counsel for the petitioner, that in the present case rasgullas in question were imported from bombay where these were manufactured and thereafter supplied by the petitioner to kwality sweets from where these were found and recovered. a bare reading of the aforesaid control order would show that this could not apply to the import of milk products from a place outside the union territory of delhi. prohibition contained in sub-clauses (b) and (e) could only be with reference to subclause (e) of clause 3 of the control order. as i read clause 3 of the control order as a whole a person is prohibited from possessing, selling, exporting etc. milk products which have been prepared in the union territory of delhi by use of milk. this is what is the object of the control order. there is thus no contravention of delhi (milk and milk products) control order, 1987 in the present case. the fir registered against the petitioner is quashed.

Full Judgment

D.P. Wadhwa, J.

(1) This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure turn quashing Fir No. 194/87 by which a case under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 was registered against the petitioner. It is alleged that the petitioner contravened Delhi (Milk and Milk Products) Control Order, 1987 by importing Rasgullas sealed in tins from Bombay and further supplying/selling the same to Sat Narain Gupta, owner of Kwalily Sweets, Greater Kailash, New Delhi. It is stated that the Rasgullas in sealed tins were found at the shop of Kwality Sweets. The case vyas accordingly registered against the petitioner and also against Sat Narain Gupta. The aforesaid control order was made for the purpose of maintaining and increasing supplies of milk for securing it equitable distribution in the Union Territory of Delhi. Prohibition was imposed for use of milk for manufacturing of khoya, rabari and paneer or any such sweets in the preparation of which milk or any of its products was the ingredient. There is also prohibition against possession, selling or serving such type of items and again to their export.

(2) It is contended by Mr. Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner, that in the present case Rasgullas in question were imported from Bombay where these were manufactured and thereafter supplied by the petitioner to Kwality Sweets from where these were found and recovered. A bare reading of the aforesaid Control Order would show that this could not apply to the import of milk products from a place outside the Union Territory of Delhi. Prohibition contained in sub-clauses (b) and (e) could only be with reference to subclause (e) of clause 3 of the Control Order. As I read clause 3 of the Control Order as a whole a person is prohibited from possessing, selling, exporting etc. milk products which have been prepared in the Union Territory of Delhi by use of milk. This is what is the object of the Control Order. There is thus no contravention of Delhi (Milk and Milk Products) Control Order, 1987 in the present case. The Fir registered against the petitioner is quashed.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 1987 Same Parties D.K. Gupta vs State Same Subject Criminal Same Judge D.P. Wadhwa, J. Acts & Sections Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Sections 7; Code of Civil P...

Criminal