Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.18 seconds)Section 3 in The Essential Commodities Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Section 7 in The Essential Commodities Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
The Essential Commodities Act, 1955
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
V.Kunhimoideenkutty vs Kerala State Wakf Board on 23 May, 2019
11. Subsequently, in a Division Bench decision of this
Court in Manoharan Pillai v. State and Anr. [2005 KHC 682]
on a reference from a Single Bench of this Court, considered the
correctness of the decision in Kunhimoideenkutty's case cited
supra, while dealing with Clause 2(f) of Kerosene Control Order,
Crl.R.P.No.3866 of 2009 9
1968 (Kerala), also categorically held that to satisfy the
definition, the oil should satisfy the test of having a flame height
of eighteen millimetres or more and is ordinarily used as a
illuminant in oil burning lamps and it is also held that report of
the Chemical Examiner that the contraband seized is "genuine
kerosene" without the flame test is not sufficient for the purpose
of prosecution. It is pertinent to note that in Manoharan Pillai's
case cited supra, there was chemical examination report and the
only defect was that smoke test was not conducted. Even in that
situation this Court has categorically held that non-compliance
of the smoke test indicates a nullification of the procedure and
accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.
Manoharan Pillai vs State Of Kerala on 2 July, 2015
11. Subsequently, in a Division Bench decision of this
Court in Manoharan Pillai v. State and Anr. [2005 KHC 682]
on a reference from a Single Bench of this Court, considered the
correctness of the decision in Kunhimoideenkutty's case cited
supra, while dealing with Clause 2(f) of Kerosene Control Order,
Crl.R.P.No.3866 of 2009 9
1968 (Kerala), also categorically held that to satisfy the
definition, the oil should satisfy the test of having a flame height
of eighteen millimetres or more and is ordinarily used as a
illuminant in oil burning lamps and it is also held that report of
the Chemical Examiner that the contraband seized is "genuine
kerosene" without the flame test is not sufficient for the purpose
of prosecution. It is pertinent to note that in Manoharan Pillai's
case cited supra, there was chemical examination report and the
only defect was that smoke test was not conducted. Even in that
situation this Court has categorically held that non-compliance
of the smoke test indicates a nullification of the procedure and
accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.
Saithalavi vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 9 February, 1998
12. The learned counsel also cited Saithalavi v. State of
Kerala [2015 (5) KHC 696] wherein while dealing with
Section 3 and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955
and Kerosene Control Order, 1968 (Kerala) and Section 7 seizure
of unauthorised quantity of kerosene, it has been held that in
chemical examination for statutory offence under the Essential
Commodities Act, requirement of smoke test is mandatory. It is
also held that non compliance of the smoke test indicates a
nullification of the procedure and accused is entitled to benefit
Crl.R.P.No.3866 of 2009 10
of doubt.
1