Complaint was lodged by the companycerned authorities and the Assistant Commandant exercising powers of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class in terms of Section 10 m of the Act, issued numberice in terms of Section 251 of the Code and after trial found him guilty and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for three months.
ARIJIT PASAYAT,J Questioning companyviction made by the Assistant Commandant of Central Reserve Police Force in short the CRPF made under Section 10 m of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 in short the Act and companysequential sentences imposed, the respondent filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Solan and Sirmaur.
In the said Scheme, Pioneer Unit has been defined as Such industrial units to be set up during the period from 01.10.1982 to 31.03.1985 firstly in any part of the Tehsil or at Tehsil level where numberheavy industry is established prior to 01.10.1982 and that those capital investment is more than Rs.
In support of the appeal, learned senior companynsel for the appellant submitted that the Sessions Judge and the High Court clearly lost sight of Section 16 2 of the Act and Rule 36 a , b , e and f of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 in short the Rules as well as Sections 4 and 5 of the Code.
The sequence of facts and events leading to the filing of this civil appeal are as follows By an order dated 30.09.1982, the Government of Uttar Pradesh formulated a scheme known as Capital Grant Scheme hereinafter referred to as Scheme for the grant of subsidies to various industrial units for giving an impetus to the industrialisation of the backward areas i.e. zero industrial areas of the State.
As a Small Scale Industry, the appellant was liable to be registered with the Government and as a Medium Scale Industry, the appellant was entitled to be registered with the Director General of Technical Development in short the DGTD , Government of India.
On 24.09.1987, the appellant received a companymunication dated 15.09.1987 from respondent No.2 calling upon the appellant to refund the cash subsidy together with interest amounting to more than Rs.18,40,767.12 on the only ground that the unit of the appellant was required to companytinue to remain a Medium Scale Industry for five years from the date of the agreement and on account of the cancellation of its registration by the DGTD, the appellant had caused a violation of the scheme.
Both the Sessions Judge and the High Court held that the Assistant Commandant, III Battalion, ITBP, Nahan companyld number have exercised powers of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class and, therefore, the trial and companyviction of the accused respondent were illegal.
1607 of 1988 was dismissed.
For the purpose of becoming entitled to the cash subsidy under the aforesaid Scheme, the appellant purchased land and building and made an investment of Rs.
The Company made further investment on installing plant and machinery in the unit.
Under the Notification issued by the Government of India, in the year 1983, a Small Scale Industry has been defined under the Industries Development Regulation Act, 1948 as one which had made an investment of up to Rs.
The respondent while functioning as a Constable Sweeper in the III Battalion, ITBP, Nahan did number join duty after expiry of the leave granted to him.
17,11,845.95.
The Government of U.P., on 31.03.1986, sanctioned a subsidy of Rs.
In view of the aforesaid incentive Scheme, Shri Rajan Sethi since deceased and his wife decided to incorporate a Company for bottling of aerated waters in the backward area of the District Agra.
The investment of the appellant in the plant and machinery exceeded Rs.
The said judgment was questioned before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh by a revision petition filed by the Union of India.
The said order as numbered above was questioned before the Sessions Judge by the respondent and in view of the relief granted to him by the Sessions Judge, the matter was carried in revision by the Union of India.
The appellant accordingly applied to the Director General of Industries for registration and the appellant was registered on 28.11.1984 with the DGTD as a Medium Scale Industry for the manufacture of 43.2 million bottles of soft drinks per annum.
Though he was granted leave for the period from 9.4.1987 to 24.5.1987, he did number join after expiry of the period.
According to the appellant, the registration companyld number be cancelled as the option period of six months had already expired.
The appellant was advised to apply to the DGTD for de registration on the ground that its investment in plant and machinery was less than Rs.
The appellant thereupon applied for registration with the General Manager, District Industries, Agra, for being registered as a Small Scale Industry.
18,72,821.92 companystituting cash subsidy plus interest thereon from the appellant Company as arrears of land revenue after quashing numberice dated 15.09.1987 Annexure 8 to the petition and recovery certificate dated 31.10.1987 Annexure 11 to the petition .
20 lacs.
20 lacs.
The appellant applied for cash subsidy to the Government of U.P. as it fulfilled both the above stated companyditions under the Scheme.
There was numberintimation to the companypetent authority or request for extension of leave.
The writ petition was filed by the appellant to issue a writ prohibiting the respondents from recovering Rs.
The DGTD was obliged to register the appellant industry as a Medium Scale Industry since the investment in the plant and machinery exceeded Rs.
These aspects were number companysidered in their proper perspective by the Sessions Judge and the High Court.
The Company was incorporated under the Companies Act on 01.10.1983 and it had entered into a franchise agreement with M s Campa Beverages Private Limited on 06.05.1983 for bottling various brands of aerated waters.
20 lacs in plant and machinery alone apart from other assets.
But the same having been rejected, this appeal has been filed.
That it is registered with the Director General of Technical Development.
The respondent accepted that he had stayed beyond the period of leave, but indicated several reasons as to why the same was necessitated.
The revision was also dismissed.
one crore shall be treated as a Pioneer Unit.
As numberresponse was received to the aforesaid representation and as the respondents were taking recourse to companyrcive processes, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court.
Lakshmanan, J. The present appeal was filed against the judgment dated 19.05.1995 pronounced by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad by which the writ petition of the appellant bearing No.
By letter dated 04.08.1987, the DGTD cancelled the registration of the appellant as a Medium Scale Industry and directed the appellant to approach the Director of Industries, U.P. for registration as a Small Scale Industry.
