TADAVARTI SATYANARAYANA AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA
LAWS(APH)-1955-11-38
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on November 18,1955

Tadavarti Satyanarayana And Others Appellant
VERSUS
State Of Andhra Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

IN RE.,KUPPUSWAMI AIYAR [REFERRED TO]
RAMANATHAN CHETTIYAR V. SUBRAMANYA AYYAR [REFERRED TO]
HARLA V. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
IN RE. RAMASWAMY MUDALIAR [REFERRED TO]
SRINIVASA MALL V. EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]
BHOLAPROSAD LALA VS. THE KING [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

SATYANARAYANA RAJU,J. - (1.)These are applications under section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the proceedings in the criminal cases pending on the file of the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Penukonda.
(2.)The Petitioners in the several petitions are the consignors of paddy and rice from several railway stations in the districts of West Godavari, Krishna and Guntur to the the railway station at Hindupur. A complaint was laid against all the petitioners before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Penukonda, by the Tahsildar of Hindupur for an alleged offence under section 7(2) of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act (XXIV of 1946) and of an alleged violation of the order passed by the Government of Andhra on the 27th of January, 1954. The validity of the orders passed by the Government of Andhra, dated 27th January, 1954 and 30th January, 1954, has been questioned in several writ petitions which have been just disposed of by me.
(3.)Mr. A. Raghavaiah and Mr. M.S. Ramachandra Rao, appearing for the petitioners, while adopting all the contentions raised by the petitioners in the Writ Petitions, raise a further contention in these Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions. They submit that even assuming that the impugned orders of the Government of Andhra are legal and valid, mens rea being an essential ingredient of an offence, and the Petitioners having had no knowledge that the consignment of the paddy and rice to the Hindupur Railway Station was illegal, they have committed no offence. They also contend that there is an obvious difference between publication of statutory enactments made by Parliament and the orders issued by the Government and relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court of India in Harla v. The State of Rajasthan, (1951) S.C.J. 735 , where it was held that the Jaipur Opium Act which purported to have been enacted by a resolution of the Council of Ministers and which was not published in the Gazette was not a law validly made.
;


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