STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. RAMESHWAR RATHOD
LAWS(SC)-1990-7-19
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: MADHYA PRADESH)
Decided on July 10,1990

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appellant
VERSUS
RAMESHWAR RATHOD Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

VIRENDRA PAL SINGH VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-2007-11-108] [REFERRED TO]
PROMISING EXPORTS LIMITED VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2020-12-9] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. MANISHKUMAR S O BABULAL BIYANI [LAWS(BOM)-1997-8-52] [REFERRED TO]
K.R.RAMESH VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(KER)-2020-6-236] [REFERRED TO]
SYED TARUJ AHMED VS. STATE OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2013-12-131] [REFERRED TO]
M T V KRISHNA MURTHY VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP [LAWS(APH)-2003-9-7] [REFERRED TO]
C GUPTA VS. GLAXOSMITHKLIN PHARMACEUTICAL LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-2007-5-125] [REFERRED TO]
VASANT S/O ANNARAO BHOSLE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2014-12-168] [REFERRED TO]
AMIT DUBEY VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2019-7-83] [REFERRED TO]
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE HYDERABAD VS. STATE OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2002-2-3] [REFERRED TO]
MON MOHAN KOHLI VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(DLH)-2021-12-252] [REFERRED TO]
GLAXO INDIA LIMITED VS. C GUPTA [LAWS(BOM)-1999-4-44] [REFERRED TO]
NOUSHAD VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2020-7-277] [REFERRED TO]
MAA CHANDI STONE CRUSHING VS. STATE OF ODISHA & OTHERS [LAWS(ORI)-2016-6-16] [REFERRED TO]
J S YADAV VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2009-4-304] [REFERRED TO]
BIJU SEBASTIAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2016-7-31] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH CHANDRA SHRIVAS VS. MURTI RAMCHANDRAJI [LAWS(MPH)-2003-11-27] [REFERRED TO]
NOOR KHAN VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1998-3-12] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH PRASAD AGARWAL VS. STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS [LAWS(GAU)-1992-2-16] [REFERRED TO]
RANPUR KHODA DHORE PANJARA POLE VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1993-11-26] [REFERRED TO]
RAGHO PRASAD VS. SPECIAL JUDGE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE [LAWS(ALL)-1999-7-169] [REFERRED TO]
GANESH GHOSH VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2009-9-4] [REFERRED TO]
ASANSOL DURGAPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. TAPAS BANERJEE [LAWS(CAL)-2008-8-49] [REFERRED TO]
ADHUNIK GRIH NIRMAN SAHKARI SAMITI MARYADIT VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2012-11-104] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KUMAR SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-1999-2-93] [REFERRED TO]
Baiwinder Singh VS. State of Punjab [LAWS(P&H)-1997-9-19] [REFERRED TO]
H.P. Diploma Engineers Association VS. H.P.S.E.B. [LAWS(HPH)-1994-12-23] [REFERRED TO]
NEELI VS. PADMANABHA PILLAI [LAWS(KER)-1992-10-17] [REFERRED TO]
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD VS. CHANDRAN P [LAWS(KER)-1998-4-39] [REFERRED TO]
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD VS. P.CHANDRAN [LAWS(KER)-2016-7-207] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDABAI VS. COLLECTOR, JALGAON [LAWS(BOM)-2007-9-244] [REFERRED]
THE STATE OF MIZORAM VS. SHRI. LALTHANZAMA AND ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-2017-9-95] [REFERRED TO]
PARAMJEET SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1998-3-90] [REFERRED TO]
SARAT CHANDRA NANDA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MPH)-1996-4-61] [REFERRED TO]
BINA BASAK VS. BIPUL KANTI BASAK [LAWS(CAL)-2013-12-114] [REFERRED TO]
MICHAEL RAJ VS. PRAKASH [LAWS(MAD)-2014-12-16] [REFERRED TO]
PARSADILAL VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2012-5-106] [REFERRED TO]
NARESH KUMAR VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2020-7-85] [REFERRED TO]
RAMCHANDRA SAW VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2013-7-22] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. AMRIT LAL [LAWS(P&H)-1996-2-135] [REFERRED TO]
KANCHANA VS. THE STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2014-9-162] [REFERRED TO]
LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. M K GUPTA [LAWS(SC)-1993-11-19] [REFERRED TO]
B S YEDDYURAPPA VS. SIRAJIN BASHA [LAWS(KAR)-2011-11-56] [REFERRED]
SRI MAHANTA SRI GARUDADHWAJA (DEAD) VS. COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS [LAWS(ORI)-2016-6-60] [REFERRED TO]
ARUN KUMAR SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-2-177] [REFERRED TO]
GOPAL PRASAD VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-1991-5-20] [DISTINGUSED 1990 ALL CRI R 804 : 1991 ALL CRI C 49 8]
AJIT SINGH VERMA VS. HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD. [LAWS(HPH)-2013-1-63] [REFERRED TO]
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD VS. ALAVI [LAWS(KER)-1998-4-32] [REFERRED TO]
MAGMA LEASING LTD VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2007-7-53] [REFERRED TO]
C GUPTA VS. GLAXO SMITHKLINE PHARMACEUTICAL LIMITED [LAWS(BOM)-2003-10-77] [REFERRED TO]
VIMLESH KUMAR VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1994-3-59] [REFERRED TO]
TATA STEEL LTD VS. ATMA TUBE PRODUCTS LTD [LAWS(P&H)-2013-3-85] [REFERRED TO]
OLI MOHAMMED VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2015-3-624] [REFERRED TO]
JAMSHEDPUR MOTOR ACCESSORIES STORES VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(PAT)-1990-11-31] [REFERRED TO]
PANKAJ KUMAR SHARMA VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR. [LAWS(JHAR)-2007-1-73] [REFERRED TO]
K P FRANCIS VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-1991-11-41] [DISTINGUISHED]
DHANANJAY ROY VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2013-7-7] [REFERRED TO]
GEETHA DECORTICATERS VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2020-11-83] [REFERRED TO]
ANWAR HASHMI VAKIL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2007-9-190] [REFERRED TO]
CH PRABHAKAR VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2001-6-112] [REFERRED TO]
NAOREM RAKHESH SINGH AND ORS. VS. THE MANIPUR UNIVERSITY AND ORS. [LAWS(MANIP)-2015-9-3] [REFERRED TO]
PEOPLE UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2000-12-87] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Sabyasachi Mukharj1, C.J.I - (1.)-This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment and order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, dated 30th September, 1976 in Miscellaneous Petition No. 63 of 1976.
(2.)The respondent was the owner of a truck which was seized by the Police Sorwa on 10th December, 1974 for alleged contravention of the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter called 'the Act') in connections with Crime No. 42 of 1972. The respondent made applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, to the High Court to quash the orders of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Alirajpur and the Sessions Judge, Jhabua respectively rejecting his request for the return of the vehicle on furnishing security and to quash the order of the District Collector and restrain him from proceeding further in pursuance of the notice issued by him under Section 6A of the Act for confiscation of the vehicle and ask for return of the vehicle, or in the alternative to direct the District Judicial Magistrate to dispose of the, application in accordance with law.
(3.)The High Court after setting out the facts addressed itself to three questions, namely, (1) whether Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act as amended by the Amendment Act No. 30 of 1974 was prospective or retrospective (2) whether in the facts and circumstances, the criminal Court had jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 523 read with Section 516A of the Criminal Procedure Code for the return of the vehicle seized by the Police pending final decision of the criminal case and (3) whether the respondent was entitled on the merits for the return of the vehicle as prayed for
;


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