STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. FIRM HOTEL NAGARJUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short but interesting and important question which falls for determination in these two connected revision petitions filed by the State Government under Ss. 397 and 401, Cr. P.C. against different but similar order of the learned Special Judge, Gulbarga in Special Case Numbers 3/88 and 51/87 is:- Whether the Sessions Judge functioning as Special Court under S. 12-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') was justified in discharging the respondents-accused charge-sheeted for the offence of contravention of the provisions of certain control orders promulgated relating to essential commodities under Section 3 of the Act and made punishable under S. 7 of the Act on the sole ground that the Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner had released the seized essential commodity to the accused under S. 6-A of the Act by holding that he had not violated any of the provisions of the control order and, therefore, he cannot go behind the order made under S. 6-A of the Act so long as it stands?

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts which have given rise to these 2 revision petitions are as under:-

(3.) It is thus seen that in both the cases the learned Special Judge without adverting to the material produced before him by the prosecution along with the charge-sheets filed in the respective cases has discharged the accused by blindly adopting the order made by the competent authority under S. 6-A of the Act. Whether such a bald order does or does not suffer from serious legal infirmity is the crucial question which has to be determined as already pointed out above.