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>Supreme Court Upholds Conviction for Violating Essential Commodities Act</h1> <h3>Keshabhai Malabhai Vankar Versus State of Gujarat</h3> The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, for violating the Gujarat Essential Articles ... - Issues:Conviction under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 based on violation of the Gujarat Essential Articles Order, 1981 and conditions of the agreement. Interpretation of Section 7(1)(a)(i) and Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Act. Consideration of minimum sentence and power of the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution to reduce the sentence.Analysis:The appellant appealed against the conviction under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the sentence imposed by the Special Judge, Mehsana. The charge was based on the violation of the Gujarat Essential Articles Order, 1981 and conditions of the agreement under the Act. The appellant contended that the case should fall under Section 7(1)(a)(i) of the Act, arguing against the imposition of the minimum sentence. However, the Court found that the appellant's actions did not align with the clauses of Section 7(1)(a)(i) and upheld the conviction under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Act, which mandates a minimum sentence for maintaining supply and distribution of essential commodities.The Court emphasized that the imposition of the minimum sentence was in line with the legislative policy to regulate the production, supply, and distribution of essential commodities. The appellant sought the Supreme Court to exercise its power under Article 142 of the Constitution to reduce the sentence. The Court acknowledged its plenary power under Article 142 but declined to interfere, citing the social interest in maintaining statutory regulations for essential commodities at fair prices. The Court highlighted that the legislative amendment aimed to prevent statutory violations and upheld the minimum sentence as prescribed by the Act, ultimately dismissing the appeal.In conclusion, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, based on the violation of the Gujarat Essential Articles Order, 1981. The Court upheld the imposition of the minimum sentence as per the legislative policy to regulate the supply and distribution of essential commodities, declining to exercise its power under Article 142 to reduce the sentence.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
