TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a person storing edible oils for use in manufacturing another product, without a licence under the relevant control orders, falls within the definition of "dealer" so as to attract action under the Essential Commodities Act, and whether the High Court was justified in quashing the first information report in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction.
Analysis: The definitions in the control orders covered a person engaged in the business of purchase, sale or storage for sale of oilseeds or edible oils. The storage of large quantities of soyabean oil, refined soyabean oil and castor oil without a licence brought the respondent within the statutory expression "dealer". The complaint disclosed the essential ingredients of the alleged offence and was not a case where no cognisable offence was made out. The power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is exceptional and must be exercised sparingly, particularly where the allegations disclose a prima facie offence and investigation is at an initial stage.
Conclusion: The respondent was liable to be proceeded against under the control orders and the Essential Commodities Act, and the High Court was not justified in quashing the FIR.
TaxTMI 
