LexKUNJILAL AND ANOTHER versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1954 .Anderson Wright Ltd. •• Moran aii.d Company. Mukherjea ]. 1954 October 8. 872 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19551 to the arbitration agreement. If the Court 1s of opinion that the respondent was in fact a party, the suit shall be stayed and the appellant would be allowed to proceed by way of arbitration in accordance with the arbitration clause. If on the other hand the finding is adverse to the appellant, the application will be dismissed. The appellant will have its costs of this appeal. Further costs between the parties will abide the result. Appeal allowed. KUNJILAL AND ANOTHER "· THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH. [S. R. DAs, GHuLAM HASAN and BHAGWATI JJ.] Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898), s. 403 (!) and (2)- Appellants convicted for offences under ss. 392 and 332 l.P.C. while exporting conti·aband g(!ods-Previous acquittal for prosecution under s. 7 of the Ersential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946 -JlVhether a bar to the subsequent trial for offences under ss. 392 and 332 l.P.C. The appellants were tried and convicted for offences under ss. 392 and 332 of the Indian Penal Code committed when they were exporting certain essential supplies, the export of \vhich \Vas prohibited and constituted an offence under s. 7 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946. It was contended that the appellants were already prosecuted for an offence under s. 7 of the Essential Supplies (Ten1porary Powers) Act, 1946, and though convicted by the Magistrate, v.·ere acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge, S:igar, and on the basis of that judgment which 'vas not brought to the notice of the High Court the appellants 'vho had once been tried for the same offence and acquitted could not be tried again under the provisions of s. 403( 1) of the Code of Crin1inal Procedure for the same offence nor on the same facts for any other offence for 'vhich a different charge fro1n the one made against them might have been nlade under s. 236 of the Code of Criininal Procedure or for \vhat they 1night ha,'c been convicted under s. 237 of the Code of Crirninal Procedure. Held, that neither s. 236 nor s. 237 'vas applicable and that sub-section (2) of s. 403 of the C.Ode of Crin1inal Procedure \Vas a complete answer to the contention because the appellants "''ere not ·• - • tried for the same offence as contcn1plated under s. 403( 1) but for a _.._ distinct offence as conte1nplated by sub-section (2). • .. > j • :S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 873 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JuRismcnoN : Criminal Appeal No. 73 of 1953. Appeal by Special Leave granted by the Supreme Court by its Order dated the 30th January, 1953, from the Judgment and Order dated the 12th November, 1952, of the High Court of Judicature at Nagpur in Criminal Revision No. 399 of 1951 arising out of the Judgment and Order dated the 26th March, 1951, of :the Court of the Magistrate at Sagar in Criminal Case No. 44 of 1950. Y. Kumar for the appellant. B. Sen and l. N. Shroff for the respondent. 1954. October 8. The Judgment of the Court was ·delivered by GHULAM HASAN J.-This appeal under article 136 of 1:he Constitution is filed against an order of the High Court of Judicature at Nagpur, passed in revision under the following circumstances. The two appellants, Kunjilal and Deopal, who are father and son, the latter being aged 17, were prosecuted under section 392 and section 332, Indian Penal Code, in the Court of the Magistrate, Sagar. They were sentenced under the former to 1 year's rigorous imprisonment and under the latter to a fine of Rs. 500 ·each. Their convictions were upheld on appeal but Kunjilal's sentence was reduced to six months R. I. and Rs. 350 fine, while Deopal was bound over under section 562 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the sentence of imprisonment was set aside. His fine was reduq:d under section 332, Indian Penal Code,· to Rs. 250. They carried the matter further in revision to the High Court but it was dismissed. It appears that the export of certain essential supplies such as rice and ghee was prohibited from Madhya Pradesh to another State and anv person contravening the prohibition was guilty of an offence under section 7 ·of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946. Three bullock carts belonging to the appellants and carrying bags of rice and tins of ghee were crossing
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.