Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAM KUMAR JAIN versus STATE OF U.P. & ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ram Kumar Jain v. State Of U.P. & Another - APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 14417 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 20247 (29 November 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

 (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.

Vs.

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.

Dt:  29.11.2006

14417/06 n.u.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.