STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus HANS RAJ DEPAR ETC.

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus HANS RAJ DEPAR ETC.

Contravention of clause 3(a) constitutes a punishable offence; however, for punishment evidence must establish that the article in question is 'vanaspati' as per Schedule I; since prosecution failed to prove respondents were dealers in 'vanaspati', acquittal is confirmed.

Parties
Appellant: State of Maharashtra; Respondent: Hans Raj Depar
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
25 February 1977
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Decision (by Special Leave) Against Bombay High Court Acquittal
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; acquittal confirmed.
Legal Topics
Essential Commodities Act, Maharashtra Scheduled Articles (display and Marking of Prices) Order, Interpretation of Statutory Orders, Criminal Procedure for Regulatory Offences
Criminal Law Regulatory/administrative Law Essential Commodities Act Maharashtra Scheduled Articles (display and Marking of Prices) Order Interpretation of Statutory Orders Criminal Procedure for Regulatory Offences

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

State of Maharashtra

Appellant

Hans Raj Depar

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Decision (by Special Leave) Against Bombay High Court Acquittal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether failure to display prices of vanaspati constitutes a punishable offence under Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the Maharashtra Scheduled Articles (Display and Marking of Prices) Order, 1966
  2. 2 Whether 'vanaspati' includes hydrogenated oils for the purposes of punishment under the Order
  3. 3 Whether clauses 3(a) and 4 of the 1966 Order operate independently for constituting a punishable offence

Ratio Decidendi

Contravention of clause 3(a) constitutes a punishable offence; however, for punishment evidence must establish that the article in question is 'vanaspati' as per Schedule I; since prosecution failed to prove respondents were dealers in 'vanaspati', acquittal is confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; acquittal confirmed.

Orders

  • Supreme Court sets aside High Court's reasoning but confirms acquittal of respondents due to total lack of evidence that respondents dealt in 'vanaspati'.