9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Conviction under Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Rajasthan Foodgrains Order, 1959; Appeal against acquittal; Compliance with legislative requirements for promulgating orders under the Essential Commodities Act; Interpretation of legal provisions regarding laying orders before Parliament; Presumption of validity of legislative acts; Correct application of relevant laws in the case. Analysis: The case involved the conviction of three accused under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the Rajasthan Foodgrains (Restrictions on Border Movement) Order, 1959. The accused were found carrying wheat without proper authorization, leading to their arrest and subsequent legal proceedings. The Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused, prompting the State to appeal the decision. The High Court reviewed the evidence and found that the accused were indeed transporting wheat in violation of the law, leading to their conviction under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and the Inter-Zonal Wheat and Wheat Products (Movement Control) Order, 1964. The High Court addressed the issue of compliance with legislative requirements for promulgating orders under the Essential Commodities Act. The State argued that the failure to lay the Rajasthan Foodgrains Order, 1959 before Parliament rendered it invalid. However, the Court clarified that such laying before Parliament is not a condition precedent for the order to be valid. The Court emphasized the presumption of validity of legislative acts and noted that the burden of proving non-compliance rested on the accused, which they failed to do. Therefore, the Court rejected the argument that the order was invalid due to lack of proof of being laid before Parliament. Furthermore, the Court highlighted the correct application of relevant laws in the case. It pointed out that the accused were charged under the incorrect order, Rajasthan Foodgrains Order, 1959, instead of the Inter-Zonal Wheat and Wheat Products (Movement Control) Order, 1964. Despite this error, the Court determined that the accused were well aware of the nature of the offence they were charged with, leading to their conviction under the correct order. The Court set aside the acquittal, convicted the accused, and reinstated the order confiscating the seized wheat. In conclusion, the High Court allowed the appeal, convicted the accused under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and the Inter-Zonal Wheat Order, 1964, sentencing them to imprisonment and fine. The District Magistrate was directed to ensure the arrest of the accused for serving their sentences as per the judgment.
|
