Criminal revision filed challenging confiscation of grain violated grain control orders. No argument presented by applicant. Court found no prima facie illegality and dismissed the revision.
Impugned orders dated 16.9.2001 and 3.12.1999 affirming confiscation were maintained.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
PT
/ :'y
..^L^
IN THg HIGH OSUaS GE GB1HATTI SGABH AT BILASHJR
CRIMXNAL 8BVI SION -^eS.^ /2 001
APPMSANT 8 Hari Sgilac Indus-fcries
Vijay Nagar, P.B.NO. 43
Qoadia'(Maharashtra)
Vs.,7
RESPONDENT s Sta-te.e of Ohhat-bisqarh
GBIMINAL REVISION U/S 397 GR.P.G.
_2\
„«••"•i--~
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT B1LASPUR
Criminal Revision No.S29 of2001
ADplicant
Hari Sailao Industri^
Ve/sus
Respondent
State of Chhattisgarh
(CriminaiRevision under Section 397oftheCr.P.C.)
None present for the appticant. Mr.S.RJJaiswai, Panel Lawyerforthe respondent.
Hon'ble Mr.T.P'. Sharma, J.) (SB:
ORDER
! have perused both the orders.
On perusal, 1 do not find anyprima fecie ill^ality in confiscating the rice of 130 quintal in violation of the M.P.Anusuchit Vastu Vyapari (Anugyapan Tatha Jamakhori Par Nirbandhan) Order, 1991. Consequently, the revision is iiable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.
Sdf-
T.p. Sbarlaa
Judge
JSS^£^S^m
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Hari Sailao Industries
State of Chhattisgarh
T.P. Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
