Hari Ram Vs. the State of Rajasthan

Hari Ram vs The State of Rajasthan

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Decided Jul 21, 1992

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/765844

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/765844
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: Y.R. Meena, J.
Decided On: Jul 21, 1992
Case Number: S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 368 of 1982
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

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

Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Section 6A--Order of confiscation--Appeal dismissed mentioning no scope for interference--Held, order is neither reasoned nor proper.;The impugned order is neither reasonsed nor proper order. The order should contain the points for determination the decision thereon and reasons for ...

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Hari Ram

Advocate Mr. A.K. Samdaria

Respondent

The State of Rajasthan

Legal References

Cases Referred: Prabhakaran Nair and Ors. v. State of Kerala
Reported In: 1992(2)WLC715; 1992(2)WLN618

Excerpt

essential commodities act, 1955 - section 6a--order of confiscation--appeal dismissed mentioning no scope for interference--held, order is neither reasoned nor proper.;the impugned order is neither reasonsed nor proper order. the order should contain the points for determination the decision thereon and reasons for the decision. the mere mentioning that there is no scope in the order for interference, is not enough.;section 6-a of the essential commodities act, 1955 provides the appeal against the order of confiscation of essential commodity. according to this section, the appeal lies to the state government. secondly, the order of the learned sessions judge is not a speaking order.;the learned sessions judge is also directed to examine as to whether the appeal against the order of additional district magistrate can be entertained by him inspite of the provisions of section 6-a of the essential commodities act.;revision allowed - .....for tiling the appeal in the court of sessions judge against the impugned order of the additional collector-cum-addl. district magistrate, pali, therefore, the appeal filed by the petitioner in the court of sessions, judge, pali is not maintainable.4. i have heard mr. a.k. samdaria, learned counsel for the petitioner and mr. c.r. jakhar, learned public prosecutor for the state and alsoperused the orderof the learned sessions judge, which reads as under:dksbz miflfkr ugh gs esus v/khuklfk u;k;ky; dsk vkns'k ns j[kk] mles fdlh glr{ksi dh xqatkb'k ugh gs vr% vihy [kkfjt dh tkrh gs a5. the impugned order is neither reasonsed nor proper order. the order should contain the points for determination the decision thereon and reasons for the decision. the mere mentioning that there is no scope in the order for interference, is not enough.6. section 6a of the essential commodities act, 1955 provides the appeal against the order of confiscation of essential commidity. according to this section, the appeal lies to the state government. secondly, the order of the learned sessions judge is not a speaking order.7. considering both the aspects of the case, i set aside the order of sessions judge and remit the matter back to the learned sessions judge with direction to pass a reasoned and speaking order the learned sessions judge is also directed to exlamine as to whether the appeal against the order of additional district magistrate can be entertained by him inspite of the provisions of section 6a of the essential commodities act.8. the revision petition is disposed of with the above observations.

Full Judgment

Y.R. Meena, J.

1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Pali dated 18.8.82.

2. Mr. A.K. Samdaria, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that thelearned Sessions Judge has summarily dismissed the appeal without giving any reason, therefore, the order of the learned Sessions Judge is erroenous. For that he relied upon the decision of the Kerla High Court in Prabhakaran Nair and Ors. v. State of Kerala : AIR1960 Ker314 .

3. On the other hand Mr. C.R. Jakhar, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there is no provision for Tiling the appeal in the court of Sessions Judge against the impugned order of the Additional Collector-cum-Addl. District Magistrate, Pali, therefore, the appeal filed by the petitioner in the court of Sessions, Judge, Pali is not maintainable.

4. I have heard Mr. A.K. Samdaria, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. C.R. Jakhar, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and alsoperused the orderof the learned Sessions Judge, which reads as under:

dksbZ mifLFkr ugh gS eSus v/khUkLFk U;k;ky; dsk vkns'k ns j[kk] mles fdlh gLr{ksi dh xqatkb'k ugh gS vr% vihy [kkfjt dh tkrh gS A

5. The impugned order is neither reasonsed nor proper order. The order should contain the points for determination the decision thereon and reasons for the decision. The mere mentioning that there is no scope in the order for interference, is not enough.

6. Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 provides the appeal against the order of confiscation of essential commidity. According to this Section, the appeal lies to the State Government. Secondly, the order of the learned Sessions Judge is not a speaking order.

7. Considering both the aspects of the case, I set aside the order of Sessions Judge and remit the matter back to the learned Sessions Judge with direction to pass a reasoned and speaking order The learned Sessions Judge is also directed to exlamine as to whether the appeal against the order of Additional District Magistrate can be entertained by him inspite of the provisions of Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act.

8. The revision petition is disposed of with the above observations.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 1992 Same Parties Hari Ram vs The State of Rajasthan Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Y.R. Meena, J.

Criminal