9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
1. Interpretation of Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 as amended by Amendment Act No. 30 of 1974 - prospective or retrospective? 2. Jurisdiction of the criminal court to entertain an application for the return of a seized vehicle pending final decision of a criminal case. 3. Entitlement of the respondent for the return of the vehicle. Interpretation of Section 6A - Prospective or Retrospective: The High Court examined whether Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, as amended by the 1974 Amendment Act, was prospective or retrospective. It was established that the normal rule of construction is that a provision in a statute is prospective unless there are clear indications of retroactivity. The High Court concluded that there was no retroactivity based on an analysis of the statute and relevant provisions. The High Court's finding that the Amendment Act was only prospective was upheld, as there were no specific words indicating retrospective effect, and the positive provisions of sub-section (2) of section 1 supported this view. Therefore, the challenge to the High Court's order on this aspect was not entertained, affirming the prospective nature of the amendment. Jurisdiction of the Criminal Court: The respondent argued that the Criminal Court had jurisdiction to confiscate the vehicle under section 7 of the Act, and thus the proceedings by the District Collector should be quashed. The High Court, after considering relevant authorities, concluded that the criminal Court retained jurisdiction to deal with the matter. Despite the enactment of Section 6A and section 7 of the Act, the Criminal Court was found to retain jurisdiction unless there was a clear ouster of its jurisdiction. The High Court's decision on this matter was upheld, emphasizing that the Criminal Court was not completely ousted of jurisdiction, and therefore, the order for the return of the vehicle to the respondent was justified. Entitlement for the Return of the Vehicle: Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, and the respondent was granted the return of the vehicle upon furnishing security. The Court found that the High Court's decision to return the vehicle to the respondent was appropriate in the given circumstances. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs, affirming the respondent's entitlement for the return of the vehicle.
|
