Dismissed

Regional Enforcement Officer v. Manoj Jugalkishor Marda and Anr.

Bombay HC13 Oct 2008APPLN/4090/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal application for leave to appeal was heard by a single judge of the Bombay High Court. The applicant, a Regional Enforcement Officer, challenged the acquittal of the respondent in proceedings under the Handlooms Act. The judge found no infirmity in the trial court's reasoning and refused leave to appeal, dismissing the matter.

What did the court decide?

Leave to appeal refused; Criminal Application dismissed.

Regional Enforcement Officer Vs Manoj… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4090 OF 2007

¶4

 Regional Enforcement Officer ...Applicant
 (Orig.Complainant)
 vs.
 Manoj Jugalkishor Marda & Anr. ...Respondents
 (Respondent No.1 -
 Orig.Accused)

¶5

 Mr.J.C. Satpure and Mr.A.d. Kango for the Applicant.
 Mr.P.A. Pol, APP for the State.
 Mr.P.R. Arjunwadkar for Respondent No.1.

¶6

CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J.

¶7

DATED : OCTOBER 13, 2008

¶8

P.C. :-

¶9

 1. Heard Counsel for the applicant and Counsel for
 the respondent.

¶10

 2. The applicant in this Application for Leave to
 Appeal is challenging the judgment and order passed by
 the JMFC Court No.3, Solapur. By the said judgment and
 order dated 7th June, 2007, the learned Magistrate was
 pleased to acquit accused for the offence under Sections
 3 and 5 punishable under Section 10 of the Handlooms
 Act, 1985.

¶11

 3. The prosecution case is that in violation of the

¶12

 - 2 -

¶13

 Rules and more particularly, the regulation at Serial
 No.5 of the order issued by the Ministry of Textiles,
 respondent accused had used his powerloom for the
 purpose of manufacture of cotton warp and art-silk warp
 i.e. combination of cotton and viscose which was
 prohibited under Serial no.5 of the said order. The
 trial court on the basis of the report which was
 submitted by the prosecution held that the accused had
 not contravened the said article at the said Serial No.5
 since the prohibition mentioned in the said serial
 number was for the manufacture of pure cotton warp upto
 200 hooks and upto 400 hooks in the case of combination
 of cotton and art-silk warp. The learned Magistrate was
 of the view that the material in question did not fall
 under any of these two categories but belonged to a
 totally third category i.e. 100% man made fibre warp
 which is not covered under Serial No.5.

¶14

 4. The Handlooms (Reservation of Articles for
 Production) Act, 1985 and the order framed thereunder
 prohibit manufacture of certain categories of cotton and
 viscose. Serial No.5 reads as under :-

¶15

 - 3 -

¶16

 "Khes, bedsheet, bedcover, counterpane,
 furnishing (including tapestry, upholstery) and
 by whatever name they may be called in different
 parts of country, including double cloth and tie
 & dye, made out of cotton or art silk or in any
 combination thereof, woven with design pattern
 on multi-treadle loom and/or with dobby and/or
 jacquards up to 200 hooks in case of pure cotton
 warp and up to 400 hooks in case of combination
 of cotton & art silk warp, irrespective of count
 and dimensions.

¶17

 5. The trial court on the basis of the report has
 held that in view of the statements of PW 3, PW 4 and PW
 5, the sample designed was on plain cloth and therefore,
 the restriction given in Serial No.5 would not be
 applicable to the cloth in question.

¶18

 6. In my view, there is no infirmity in the finding
 recorded by the trial court. The trial court has after
 referring to Serial No.5 of the order dated 22nd July,

¶19

 - 4 -

¶20

 1996 has compared it with the report which is tendered

¶21

 by the prosecution and then recorded the finding that
 the restriction does not apply to the cloth seized by
 the prosecution. Hence, no case is made out for grant
 of leave.

¶22

 7. Leave is refused. Appeal does not survive.

¶23

(V.M. KANADE, J.)

Regional Enforcement Officer v. Manoj Jugalkishor Marda and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Regional Enforcement Officer v. Manoj Jugalkishor Marda and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

J.P.Jadhav Vs Precision Pressings and Ors.

J.P.Jadhav Vs Precision Pressings and Ors.

Shetkari Sahkari Sangh Ltd. Vs Dilip Jaywantrao Hire and Anr.

Ishwarbhai Hiradas Patel Vs Rajesh Bhatia and Ors.

Chunilal R. Shah Vs M/S. Panchavati Valves and Flanges Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Subhash Tukaram Potadar