Skip to content


The State of Maharashtra Vs. Kedarnath Zumbarlal Malpani - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1978CriLJ824
AppellantThe State of Maharashtra
RespondentKedarnath Zumbarlal Malpani
Excerpt:
- - the state appeal therefore must fail and is dismissed......by the accused the learned judicial magistrate, first class (railways), at aurangabad before whom the accused was tried, convicted the accused of the offence with which he was charged and sentenced him to pay a fine of rs. 60. in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for two weeks was awarded.4. mr. agarwal who appears for the accused-respondent in this appeal lost no time in pointing out that he is entitled to acquittal because the words 'same year' in clause (8) means the same calendar year. in the instant case one scooter was purchased in the year 1973 and another scooter was purchased in the year 1974. the contention of mr. agarwal which is prima facie sound is further supported by the judgment of joshi j. dated 14th sept. 1976 in criminal appeal no. 514 of 1975 (bom).....
Judgment:

Jahagirdar, J.

1. The respondent-accused in this appeal had purchased a scooter on 19th July 1973 and within one year thereafter on 12th June 1974 he purchased another scooter. The prosecution was started against him on the ground that he had contravened Clause (8) of the Scooter (Distribution and Sale) Control Order, 1960 which has been issued toy the Central Government by virtue of the power conferred upon it by section 1SG of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. Section 24(1) (iii) provides for punishment for six months or fine or with both for the offence consisting of contravention of any order made under Section 18G of the Industries (Development & Regulation) Act, 1951.

2. Clause (8) of the Scooter (Distribution and Sale) Control Order 1960, prohibits a purchase of a new scooter by a person who has purchased another scooter in the same year except with the permission in writing from the authority specified in that order. From the dates mentioned above it is clear that accused had purchased two scooters with-in 12 months. The prosecution therefore x alleged that he was guilty of contravention of the provision of Clause (8) of the Order.

3. On a plea of guilty made by the accused the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Railways), at Aurangabad before whom the accused was tried, convicted the accused of the offence with which he was charged and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 60. In default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for two weeks was awarded.

4. Mr. Agarwal who appears for the accused-respondent in this appeal lost no time in pointing out that he is entitled to acquittal because the words 'same year' in Clause (8) means the same calendar year. In the instant case one scooter was purchased in the year 1973 and another scooter was purchased in the year 1974. The contention of Mr. Agarwal which is prima facie sound is further supported by the judgment of Joshi J. dated 14th Sept. 1976 in Criminal Appeal No. 514 of 1975 (Bom) wherein it has been held that the purchase of scooters within one calendar year and not within 12 months is hit by the provisions of Clause (8) of the Order. The State Appeal therefore must fail and is dismissed. The accused is acquitted. Fine, if paid by him, shall be refunded to him.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //