Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S DAUSA DIESELS versus DISTRICT COLLECTOR DAUSA AND A

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/S DAUSA DIESELS v DISTRICT COLLECTOR DAUSA AND A - CRLR Case No. 550 of 2000 [2007] RD-RJ 640 (1 February 2007)

1.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

ORDER

S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 550/2000

M/S DAUSA DIESELS Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, DAUSA & ANR.

DATE: 01.02.2007.

HON'BLE MR. K.S. RATHORE, J.

None present for the petitioner.

Mr. Ashwani Kumar Sharma, PP for the State.

****

This revision petition under Section 397 r/w

Section 401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment dated 07.09.2000 passed by the learned Sessions Judge,

Dausa in Criminal Appeal No. 32/2000, whereby he dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of confiscation of lubricating oil and grease dated 04.08.2000 passed by the District Collector, Dausa under Section 6(1) of the Essential Commodities Act.

Brief facts of the case are that lubricating oil and grease were recovered from the possession of the petitioner on 25.10.99. It is not disputed that the petitioner was not having a valid license to deal with the lubricating oil and grease and, therefore, the lubricating oil and grease was confiscated.

Upon careful perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court as well as the Appellate

Court, concurrent findings are given against the 2. petitioner. I find no illegality or error apparent on the face of the record in the impugned judgments passed by the trial Court and the Appellate Court. No interference whatsoever is required by this Court and no illegality is committed as the petitioner was not having a valid license to possess the lubricating oil and grease and it was not for personal use but was kept for sale amounting to Rs. 1,11,641/-.

Thus, I find no merit in the revision petitioner, which fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

The interim order dated 25.10.2000 granted by this Court is herewith rejected.

(K.S. RATHORE),J. /KKC/


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.