PRAKASH BABU RAGHUVANSHI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) An interesting point has been raised in the appeal, which unfortunately does not appear to have been canvassed before the courts below. The appellant was convicted for allegedly committing offence in terms of Section 3 read with Section 7 (l) (a) (ii) of the Essential commodities Act, 1955 (in short 'the Act'). He was found guilty by the learned Sessions judge, Vidisha in Sessions Case No. 11 of 1996. The conviction and the sentence of one years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- as had been imposed, came to be confirmed by a learned Single Judge of the High court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench by the impugned judgment.

(3.) Mr. S. B. Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that for attracting Section-7 of the Act, the primary requirement is that there must be violation of an order. What the prosecution seems to have relied upon is Madhya Pradesh Sarvajanik Purti vitaran Scheme, 1991 (in short the 'scheme'). According to him, the Scheme cannot be equated with an order, as required under the act. Learned counsel for the respondent-State, on the other hand, submitted that such a plea which essentially would need factual adjudication, was not canvassed before either the Trial court or the High Court.