VIKYAMAL DATUMAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
LAWS(GJH)-1966-8-1
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on August 01,1966

VIKYAMAL DATUMAL Appellant
VERSUS
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

V.B.RAJU - (1.) THIS is an appeal against an order passed by the learned City Magistrate IVth Court Ahmedabad confiscating the Muddamal Articles in Criminal Case No. 1530 of 1965 wherein the appellant who was the original accused was acquitted. The notification purporting to be issued under sec. 4 of The Spirituous Preparations (Inter-State Trade and Commerce) Control Act 1955 by the Central Government is not in accordance with sec. 4 of the said Act which section reads as under:- 4 Other preparations containing alcohol may be notified as spirituous preparations If the Central Government is satisfied after making such inquiry in this behalf as it may think fit and after taking into account such representations as may be made in the matter that control of inter-State trade and commerce in any preparation containing alcohol other than a preparation referred to in sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (ii) of clause (d) of sec. 2 is necessary in the public interest it may by notification in the Official Gazette declare such preparation to be a spirituous preparation within the meaning of this Act and thereupon the provisions of this Act shall apply thereto. The notification issued by the Ministry of Commerce Central Government on 27th April 1965 reads as under:- Whereas the Central Government is satisfied that control of inter-State trade and commerce in Eau de cologne is necessary in the public interest; Now therefore in exercise of the powers conferred by sec. 4 of the Spirituous Preparations (Inter-State Trade and Commerce) Control Act 1955 (39 of 1955) the Central Government hereby declares Eau de cologne to be a spirituous preparation within the meaning of that Act. Unless the Central Government is satisfied that the preparation is a preparation containing alcohol other than a preparation referred to in sub clause (i) or sub-clause (ii) of clause (d) of sec. 2 and unless the Central Government is further satisfied that in respect of such preparation control of inter-State trade and commerce is necessary in the public interest a notification cannot be made under sec. 4 of the said Act. Moreover there is no provision for confiscation in the Act and the order of confiscation is not proper when the appellant is acquitted.
(2.) THE appeal is therefore allowed and the order of confiscation is set aside. THE property should be returned to the person from whom it was taken. Appeal allowed.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.