TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court clarifies Price Marking Order; no prior Central Govt approval needed, Rule 184(b) not applicable, High Court retains bail jurisdiction.</h1> <h3>Ishwar Chand Versus State Of Himachal Pradesh</h3> Ishwar Chand Versus State Of Himachal Pradesh - 1976 CriLJ 386 Issues Involved:1. Validity of the Price Marking and Display Order due to lack of prior concurrence of the Central Government.2. Applicability of Rule 184 concerning the Price Marking and Display Order.3. Consideration of mens rea in applying Rule 184.4. Ultra vires nature of Rule 184 and its applicability to anticipatory bail.5. Jurisdiction of the High Court to grant bail after the constitution of the Special Tribunal.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:Point 1: Validity of the Price Marking and Display OrderThe primary contention was whether the Price Marking and Display Order required prior concurrence from the Central Government as stipulated by Rule 114(4). The court noted that Rule 114(4) mandates prior concurrence for orders regulating the movement or transport of foodstuffs or controlling prices. However, the Price Marking and Display Order was not concerned with regulating movement or transport but required dealers to display prices and opening stocks. The court concluded that since the order did not involve controlled prices determined by the government or a statutory authority, prior concurrence was unnecessary. Therefore, the Himachal Pradesh Commodities Price Marking and Display Order, 1975, was not ultra vires.Points 2, 3, and 4: Applicability and Nature of Rule 184The court examined whether Rule 184, which sets conditions for granting bail, applied to contraventions of the Price Marking and Display Order. Rule 184(b) requires that for bail to be granted, the prosecution must be given an opportunity to oppose, and the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty if the contravention is specified by the government. The court noted that the notification dated July 9, 1975, specified Rule 114 but not the Price Marking and Display Order. Consequently, Rule 184(b) did not apply to contraventions of the Price Marking and Display Order. Since Clause (b) of Rule 184 was inapplicable, the court did not need to address the questions of the rule's ultra vires nature, its applicability to anticipatory bail, or the consideration of mens rea.Point 5: Jurisdiction of the High Court to Grant BailThe court addressed whether the High Court retained jurisdiction to grant bail after the constitution of the Special Tribunal. The learned Advocate General argued that the Special Tribunal's exclusive jurisdiction to try offences under the Act implied it alone could grant bail. The court clarified that the power to grant bail is distinct from the trial process and does not interfere with trial proceedings. The High Court's jurisdiction to grant bail under Sections 438 and 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, remained unaffected by the establishment of the Special Tribunal. The court emphasized that ouster of jurisdiction must be clearly expressed or necessarily implied, which was not evident in the Act or Rules. Thus, the High Court retained its power to grant bail, including anticipatory bail, irrespective of the Special Tribunal's jurisdiction.Conclusion:The court held that:1. The Price Marking and Display Order did not require prior concurrence from the Central Government.2. Rule 184(b) did not apply to contraventions of the Price Marking and Display Order.3. The High Court retained its jurisdiction to grant bail under Sections 438 and 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, despite the constitution of the Special Tribunal.
TaxTMI 