High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ram Kumar Jain v. State Of U.P. & Another - APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 14417 of 2006  RD-AH 20247 (29 November 2006)
(Court no. 48)
Criminal Misc. Application No. 14417 of 2006
Ram Kumar Jain, son of late Prem Chandra Jain,
Occupier and Director of Tikaula Sugar Mills Ltd.
Tikaula District Muzaffar Nagar. .......Accused-applicants.
1. State of U.P.
2. Sri Y.S. Malik, District Cane Officer,
Muzaffar Nagar. ........ Opp.Parties.
Hon'ble Barkat Ali Zaidi, J
1. I have heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Lav Srivastava, advocate for applicant and Sri N.C. Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. Department of Food Suger and Oil Ministry of Consumer Affairs Food and Public Distribution of Central Government, New Delhi had brought a Scheme on 10.3.1993 as Incentive, to those Sugar Mills which were given licence between 7.9.1990 to 31.3.1994, that they will be free to sale off all their production in open market for 10 years, this will apply to them from the date, they start, the commercial production.
3. The applicant Sugar Mill has come in under Section 482 Cr.P.C. here and the grouse is that Opp.Party No. 2 District Sugar Cane Officer, Muzaffar Nagar, has filed a first information report against the applicant alleging that the applicant, has not paid the levy by selling 10% of its production to the Government since 17.10.2001 to June 2003, and the police of Police Station Ramraj District Muzaffar Nagar in the result of investigation, has filed a charge-sheet (in Case Crime No.66 of 2003 under Sec. 3 /7 of the Essential Commodities Act) against the applicant in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar.
4. The contention of the applicant is that the applicant was given a licence on 7.3.1994 for starting the Mill and pursuant to the scheme, it was granted privilege by the aforesaid department vide letter dated 17.10.2000 that itwas free to sale off all its production since 1999-2000 to 2008-2009 i.e. for 10 years in the market without paying any levy. The applicant contends that since applicant was not legally liable to sell off 10% of it's Sugar production to the Government no criminal liability can be fastened on it, and it cannot be said, that applicant committed breach of any provisions under the Essential Commodities Act.
5. There appears quite sum substance, in, what the applicant says, but the adjudicatory principles and practice requires, that the matter should first be considered, by the trial court. No application for discharge under the relevant provisions, was, given by the applicant before the trial Magistrate.
6. He has skipped the lower courts, and come straight to the High Court for relief. The established procedure is that he should have first addressed the grievance before the trial magistrate and it is only thereafter he could be deemed and entitled to come to this Court.
7. The applicant may, therefore, present an application in this regard before the Trial Magistrate and he should not be taken into custody till that application has been disposed of, and incase of an adverse verdict, they shall have a further respite from arrest of 30 days, so that they may seek redress from the superior courts.
8. With these observations, this application is disposed of accordingly.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.