STATE OF BIHAR versus BHAGIRATH SHARMA & ANOTHER

STATE OF BIHAR versus BHAGIRATH SHARMA & ANOTHER

The Order in force at the relevant time did not unambiguously specify 'tyres and tubes of motor cars' as scheduled items, so dealers could not be prosecuted under the Essential Commodities Act for failing to display price lists/stock; penal statutes should be strictly construed. The certificate under Article 134(1)(c) was improper as the case did not involve a substantial question of law or principle of general importance, and the decision was confined to this prosecution only.

Parties
Appellant: State of Bihar; Respondent: Bhagirath Sharma; Respondent: Radhey Shyam Sharma
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
09 April 1973
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Patna High Court Judgment and Order Dated August 14, 1969 in Criminal Revision No. 1055 of 1969, Brought by Certificate Under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Essential Commodities Act, Interpretation of Penal Statutes, Scope of High Court's Certificate Under Article 134(1)(c)
Criminal Law Statutory Interpretation Constitutional Law Essential Commodities Act Interpretation of Penal Statutes Scope of High Court's Certificate Under Article 134(1)(c)

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

State of Bihar

Appellant

Bhagirath Sharma

Respondent

Radhey Shyam Sharma

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Patna High Court Judgment and Order Dated August 14, 1969 in Criminal Revision No. 1055 of 1969, Brought by Certificate Under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether motor tyres and motor tubes are included as scheduled items under the Bihar Essential Commodities Act-other than Foodgrains-Prices and Stocks (Display and Control) Order, 1967 for purposes of prosecution under clauses 3, 4, and 5
  2. 2 Scope and propriety of certification under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution

Ratio Decidendi

The Order in force at the relevant time did not unambiguously specify 'tyres and tubes of motor cars' as scheduled items, so dealers could not be prosecuted under the Essential Commodities Act for failing to display price lists/stock; penal statutes should be strictly construed. The certificate under Article 134(1)(c) was improper as the case did not involve a substantial question of law or principle of general importance, and the decision was confined to this prosecution only.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Respondents' acquittal affirmed
  • No further prosecution allowed under the Order as then in force