STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS. versus RAMESHWAR RATHOD

Citation: [1990] 3 S.C.R. 263 · Decided: 10-07-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

,y 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
RAMESHWAR RATHOD 
JULY 10, .1990 
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, CJ. AND K.N. SAIKIA, J.] 
B 
Essential Commodities Act, 1955: Section 6A-Whether prospec-
tive or retrospective. 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898/ 1973: Sections 516A and 523/ 
451 and 457-Whether criminal court has jurisdiction to return vehicle 
seized by police under Essential Commodities Act, 1955 pending final 
decision of criminal case. 
Interpretation of Statutes: Rule of construction-Provision in 
statute normally prospective-Could be retrospective depending on 
nature of statute and purpose of provision. 
The respondent's truck was seized by the police on loth Decem-
ber, 1974 for aUeged contravention of the provisions of the Essential 
Commodities Act, 1955 on the night of 15th March, 1972. The re.-pon-
dent filed applications before the High Court for quashing the orders of 
the Judicial Magistrate First Class and the Sessions Judge rejecting bis 
request for the return of the vehicle on furnishing security and also for 
quashing the order of the CoUector and restraining him from proceed-
ing further in pursuance of notice issued by him under Section 6B of the 
Act for confiscation of the vehicle or directing the District Judicial 
Magistrate to dispose of his application in accordance with law. 
Allowing the applications and directing the return of the vehicle, 
the High Court held that Section 6A of the Act, as amended by Section 4 
of the Amendment-Act, 1974 was only prospective and that the Crimi-
nal Court had jurisdiction to entertain applications under Section 523 
read with 516A of the Criminal Procedure Code, for the return of the 
c 
D 
E 
F 
vehicle seized by the police pending final decision of the criminal case. 
G 
Dismi&Sing the appeal by th• State, this Court, 
HELD: I. I The normal rule of construction is that a provision in a 
statute is prospective but not retrospective. However, in the case of 
statutes which are merely declaratory or which relate to only matters of 
H 
263 
264 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1990] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
procedure or of evidence, it may have retrospective effect if there are 
indications to that effect or the manifest purpose compels one to + 
construe the Act as such. [265G-H] 
1.2 The High Court examined Section 4 of the Essential Com-
modities (Amendment) Act, 1974 alongwith Section 6A of the Principal 
B 
Act and came to the conclusion that there was no retrospective effect. 
Not only that there were no specific words to indicate the provisions of ,
retrospective effect, but the positive provisions of sub-section (2) of 
Section 1 were to the effect that the amendment must be deemed to have y 
come into effect on a particular date. The High Court was, therefore, 
right in holding that Section 4 of the Amendment Act, 197 4 was only 
c 
prospective and not retrospective. [2668-C) 
In the instant case, the contravention of the provisions of the Act 
is alleged to have occured on 15th March, 1972, whereas the vehicle was ~ 
seited on 10th December, 1974. Therefore, the provisions of Section 6A 
of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 as it stood on 15th March, 1972 
D only were applicable to the present case and Section 4 of the Ameod-
men! Act, 1974 could not be applied as the Act was uot in force on the 
date of offence. [266D J 
2. Normally, under the Criminal Procedure Code, the Criminal 
Courts of the country have the jurisdiction and the ouster of the ordi-
E nary criminal court in respect of a crime can only be inferred if that is 
"--
the irresistible conclusion flowing from necessary implication of the new 
Act. In view of the language used and in the context in which this 
language has been used, the High Court was right in coming to the 
conclusion that the Criminal Court retained jurisdiction and was not 
completely ousted of the jurisdiction. [266H; 267 A-B) 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 679 
~ 
of 1978. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 30. 9 .1976 of the Madhya 
Pradesh High Court in Misc. Petition No. 63 of 1976. 
G 
S.K. AgnihotrifortheAppellants. 
Nemo for the Respondent. 
~-
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H 
STAIB OF M.P. v. RAMESHWAR RATHOD [MUKHARJI. CJ.] 
265 
SABY ASACHI MUKHARJI, CJ. This is an appeal by special 
leave from the judgment and order of the High Court of Madhya 
Pradesh, dated 30th September, 1976 in Miscellaneous Petition No. 63 
of 1976. 
The respondent was the owner of a truck which was seized b
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.