Mathura Prasad Vs State of U.P.

Allahabad High Court 20 Feb 1997 Criminal Revision No. 2647 of 1983 (1997) 02 AHC CK 0113
Bench: Single Bench
Acts Referenced

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

Criminal Revision No. 2647 of 1983

Hon'ble Bench

C.A. Rahim, J

Acts Referred
  • Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Section 3, 7

Judgement Text

Translate:

C.A. Rahim, J.@mdashThis revision has been preferred against the judgment and order of the learned Special Judge, Ghazipur dated 19.12.1983 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 240 of 1983 dismissing the appeal preferred by the accused-Appellant against the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur dated 3.9.1983 in Criminal Case No. 742 of 1981, u/s 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000.

2. Sri R.C. Yadav appearing for the revisionist has submitted that the Block Development Officer has got no power to prosecute the case under the provisions of Essential Commodities Act. Sri Jitendra Singh, A.G.A. appearing for the State has referred notification dated 24.8.1973 published in U.P. Gazette, Extraordinary, on 26.8.1973, wherefrom it appears that in exercise of the powers u/s 19 of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1957, the Governor was pleased to appoint all Block Development Officers amongst others, to act as Inspector of fertilizer for the purpose of the said order and they shall exercise all powers of Inspectors. In view of the said notification the Block Development Officer has been authorised to inspect and prosecute under the said order for which an offence u/s 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act was committed.

3. Learned Counsel has then submitted that since the revision is pending for more than 12 years and since the accused-applicant undergone sentence for about a month some leniency with regard to the imposition of sentence be extended to the applicant.

4. Having considered the facts and circumstances and in view of the fact that the accused-applicant has undergone sentence for a period of about one month it would meet the ends of justice if the substantive sentence is confined to that period and a fine of Rs. 1,000 is imposed.

5. Accordingly, the revision is allowed in part. Conviction u/s 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act is hereby maintained. Imprisonment of R.I. for one year is reduced to the period already undergone and is directed to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 within one month from this date, in default to suffer R.I. for one month.

6. With the above observations, the revision is disposed of.

From The Blog
Supreme Court Clarifies Section 27 Evidence Act: Only “Fact Discovered” Admissible, Not Entire Statement
Nov
19
2025

Court News

Supreme Court Clarifies Section 27 Evidence Act: Only “Fact Discovered” Admissible, Not Entire Statement
Read More
Bar Council of India Defends Rules Allowing Foreign Law Firms in Delhi High Court
Nov
19
2025

Court News

Bar Council of India Defends Rules Allowing Foreign Law Firms in Delhi High Court
Read More