MANIPUR ADMINISTRATION versus M. NILA CHANDRA SINGH
The presumption under cl. 3(2) does not suffice to prove that the respondent is a dealer carrying on business under cl. 3(1); continuity of business must be independently established. Therefore, the respondent cannot be convicted under s. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act based solely on the statutory presumption.
- Parties
- Appellant: Manipur Administration; Respondent: M. Nila Chandra Singh
- Jurisdiction
- India
- Judgment Date
- 29 November 1963
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed; acquittal upheld.
- Legal Topics
- Interpretation of Statutory Presumption, Definition of Dealer, Essential Commodities Act
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Manipur Administration
Appellant
M. Nila Chandra Singh
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the statutory presumption under cl. 3(2) of the Manipur Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order makes a person storing more than 100 mds. of foodgrains a 'dealer' liable under s. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act?
- 2 What is the scope of the presumption under cl. 3(2) vis-à-vis cl. 3(1)?
Ratio Decidendi
The presumption under cl. 3(2) does not suffice to prove that the respondent is a dealer carrying on business under cl. 3(1); continuity of business must be independently established. Therefore, the respondent cannot be convicted under s. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act based solely on the statutory presumption.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed; acquittal upheld.
Orders
- Order of acquittal by the Judicial Commissioner confirmed.
- Conviction and sentence set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment