Skip to content


Surendra Nath Jena Vs. State of Orissa - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Appeal No. 519 of 1976
Judge
Reported inAIR1977SC1616; 1977CriLJ1120; (1977)2SCC583; 1977(9)LC364(SC)
ActsEssential Commodities Act - Sections 7; Iron and Steel Control Order, 1956
AppellantSurendra Nath Jena
RespondentState of Orissa
Excerpt:
criminal - section 7 of essential commodities act, 1955 and iron and steel control order, 1956 - acquittal of appellant from charge of stock of iron and steel - controller competent to require any person to give information regarding his stock by virtue of clause 28 (a) - conviction of such acquitted in separate proceedings for violation of clause 28 (a) illegal - view of high court that persons without possession of iron and steel can also be held guilty erroneous. - .....any person to give such information in his possession in respect of stocks of iron or steel or of scrap acquired by him.' 2. it is undisputed that the appellant was acquitted in a separate proceedings of the charge that he had acquired any stocks of iron, steel or scrap. in that view of the matter, it is impossible to hold that the appellant can still be convicted under section 7 of the essential commodities act, for violation of clause 28(a) of the iron and steel (control) order of 1956. the high court, in our opinion, is wrong in view which it has taken that a person can be held guilty of the violation of clause 28(a) even if he has not acquired the stocks of iron, steel or of scrap. 3. we, therefore, allow this appeal set aside the judgment of the high court and acquit the appellant.
Judgment:

Y.V. Chandrachud, J.

1. Clause 28 of the Iron and Steel (Control) Order, 1956, provides by Sub-clause (a) that the Controller may, with a view to securing compliance with the Order, 'require any person to give such information in his possession in respect of stocks of iron or steel or of scrap acquired by him.'

2. It is undisputed that the appellant was acquitted in a separate proceedings of the charge that he had acquired any stocks of iron, steel or scrap. In that view of the matter, it is impossible to hold that the appellant can still be convicted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, for violation of Clause 28(a) of the Iron and Steel (Control) Order of 1956. The High Court, in our opinion, is wrong in view which it has taken that a person can be held guilty of the violation of Clause 28(a) even if he has not acquired the stocks of iron, steel or of scrap.

3. We, therefore, allow this appeal set aside the judgment of the High Court and acquit the appellant.


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