Skip to main content

Nathulal v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1966 SC 43

 Nathulal v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1966 SC 43


CITATION AIR 1966 SC 43

COURT Supreme Court of India

JUDGES/CORAM Justice K.S. Shah and Justice R.


Bachawat


DATE OF

JUDGEMENT 22.03.1965


Facts:

The facts of the case are as follows: The appellant was a

dealer in a food grains at Dhar in Madhya Pradesh

prosecuted in the Court of Additional District Magistrate

for possessing in stock maunds and 21/4 seers of wheat

for the purpose of sale without license. Subsequently

appellant was charged for committing an offence

under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

Thereafter the appellant pleaded there was no intention to

contravene any provisions of the law and the grains were

stored upon filing an application for license and upon

believe that it will be issued to him. The appellant further

stated that he continued to submit returns on the food

grains stored and purchased to the respected authority.

Thus, the appellant was acquitted in the Court of

Additional District Magistrate on the ground that the


appellant is not found to be of a guilty mind.  On appeal a

division bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh set

aside the order of acquittal and convicted Nathulal on

basis that in a case arising under the act the idea of guilty

mind was different from that arising in the case like theft;

and that he contravened the provision of the act and the

order made thereunder.

Thereafter based on the findings the appellant was

sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to a

fine of Rs. 2000/- and in its default further imprisonment

of 6 months. Eventually, this appeal was filed before the

Supreme Court by Nathulal.

Issues:

The main issues in the case were:

1. Whether a factual non-compliance of the provision of

the Essential Commodities Act, 1955; precisely

section 7 amounts to an offence there under even

when there is no mens rea on the part of the

offender?

2. Whether the act of the appellant can be interpreted as

intentional contravention of the specified provision of

the Act?

Judgment:

The appeal was allowed, the order of the High Court

convicting the appellant was set aside, and ‘‘the appellant

is acquitted of the offence with which he was charged.


The bail bond is discharged. If any fine has been paid, it

shall be returned.

The Court affirmed that the appellant had contravened

Section 3 of the Order with the knowledge that he did not

hold a license. But there can be no doubt that the State

authorities acted negligently: They did not give the

appellant a hearing before rejecting his application for a

license, and did not even inform him about its rejection.

They continued to accept the returns submitted by him

from time to time, and there is no reason to disbelieve the

statement of the appellant that the Inspector had given

him assurances from time to time that a license would be

issued to him. The Court, therefore, of the view that no

serious view of the contravention of the provisions of the

Madhya Pradesh Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order,

1958, may be taken, and a fine of Rs. 50 would meet the

ends of justice. The order forfeiting the stocks of food

grains must be set aside.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

POONAM VERMA VS. ASHWIN PATEL & ORS (10 MAY, 1996)

     POONAM VERMA VS. ASHWIN PATEL & ORS (10 MAY, 1996) INTRODUCTION The medical profession is perhaps the noblest profession among any remaining professions in India. For a patient, the specialist resembles God. What's more, God is trustworthy. In any case, that is the patient's opinion. As a general rule, doctors are individuals. Furthermore, to fail is human. Doctors might submit a slip-up. Doctors might be careless. The care staff might be imprudent. Two demonstrations of carelessness might bring about a lot more pressing issue. It very well might be because of gross carelessness. The sky is the limit. In such a situation, it is basic to figure out who was careless, and under what conditions. For this situation, the Supreme Court separated carelessness, impulsiveness, and foolishness. An individual is supposed to be a careless individual when he/she unintentionally submits a demonstration of exclusion and disregards a positive obligation that he/she ought to ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur ...
1 comment
Read more

Effects of Non-Registration

 Effects of Non-Registration The Companies Act, 2013 evidently highlights that the main essential for any organization to turn into a company is to get itself registered. A company cannot come into existence until it gets registered. But no such obligation has been imposed for firms by the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. If a firm is not registered it does not cease to be called as a firm, it still exists in the eyes law. Certainly, such a big advantage is not absolute but is subjected to a lot of limitations which we will study further. Non-registration of a firm simply means that the business skips the formalities of incorporation and ceases to exist in the eyes of the law. section 58 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 deals with the procedure of incorporation. Likewise, the meaning of non-registration is the exact opposite of registration, meaning when a firm does not go through the procedure of incorporation or start carrying on activities without getting registered. Effects of ...
Post a Comment
Read more