SANTOSH KUMAR JAIN versus THE STATE
The Central Government's power under Section 3 to regulate or prohibit essential commodities includes issuing specific directions to particular persons or companies, and the seizure order was valid; consequently, obstruction to such lawful removal by public officers constituted an offence under Section 186 IPC.
Source-derived case information.
- Parties
- Appellant: Santosh Kumar Jain; Respondent: The State; Intervener: Union of India
- Jurisdiction
- India
- Judgment Date
- 05 March 1951
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal From High Court Revision Dismissal
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Essential Supplies (temporary Powers) Act, 1946, Regulatory Orders, Obstruction of Public Servant, Statutory Interpretation
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Santosh Kumar Jain
Appellant
The State
Respondent
Union of India
Intervener
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From High Court Revision Dismissal
Legal Issues
- 1 Scope of powers under Section 3 of Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946
- 2 Whether order must be general or can be specific to particular persons
- 3 Lawfulness of seizure and conviction under Section 186 IPC
Ratio Decidendi
The Central Government's power under Section 3 to regulate or prohibit essential commodities includes issuing specific directions to particular persons or companies, and the seizure order was valid; consequently, obstruction to such lawful removal by public officers constituted an offence under Section 186 IPC.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appellant's bail bond cancelled and ordered to surrender
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