HANUMAN PROSAD JHANWAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant criminal appeal is preferred by the appellant being dissatisfied and aggrieved by a judgment and order dtd. 24/11/1994 passed by Learned Judge, 2nd Special Court of E.C. Act, Calcutta in G.R. Case No. 148 of 1993.

(2.) The impugned order dtd. 24/11/1994, inter alia, states that 'After hearing both parties and after going through the case record, reported decisions I am of the opinion that the present case is not at all maintainable. Regarding alamats there is no prayer in the above two petitions and no submission was made from the defence side of this case. Hence, it is Ordered that the petitioner filed on behalf of the accused persons dtd. 3/3/94 and 16/6/94 be allowed on contest. Accused Kamakshya Narayan Singh, Smt. Sita Debi Maheswari, Hanuman Prosad Jhanwar and the company M/s. Bajrang Oil Co. represented by the accused No.3, Hanuman Proasad Jhanwar be discharged from this case. The alamats be confiscated with the State after the period of appeal, as the accused persons are discharged on technical ground."

(3.) The Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted though the appellants were discharged by the Learned Trial Court, the goods were ordered to be confiscated by the State after the period of appeal and the same was contrary to the provisions enumerated under Sec. 6A of the Essential Commodities Act. He further mentioned that the goods were released on bond and separate proceeding under Sec. 6A of the Essential Commodities Act was pending.