# 'Ayurved Pharmacy and another v. State of Tamil Nadu' 1989 (2) Supreme

- **Citation:** (2000) 3 ILRA 327
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2000
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ayurved-pharmacy-and-another-v-state-of-tamil-nadu-1989-2-supreme-39527
- **Pages:** 4

## Text

327 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000
dated 10.4.1995 and 15.5.1995 are
phosphatic and potassic fertilizers. All the
fertilizers
of
N.P.K.
of
various
combinations are treated as phosphatic
fertilizers not only by the Government of
India but also by the State Government's
Agriculture Department, the farmers, the
trade, and in common parlance. Hence, it
is submitted that there is no rational basis
of discriminating against N.P.K. 23:23:0

9. The learned counsel of the
petitioner has relied upon a decision of
the Supreme Court rendered in the case
'Ayurved Pharmacy and another Vs.
State of Tamil Nadu' 1989 (2) Supreme
Court Cases page 285, and has submitted
that two items of the same category
cannot be discriminated. Relying upon his
decision he has submitted that merely
because of the composition of N.P.K.
discrimination could not have been made
against the petitioner.

10. On the other hand, the learned
Standing Counsel appearing for the
respondents has relied upon a decision of
the Supreme Court in 'Kerala Hotel and
Restaurant Association and other Vs.
state of Kerala and others' AIR 1990
Supreme Court page 913 (para 27)
wherein it has been held that the State
enjoys the widest latitude where measures
of economic and fiscal regulation are
concerned.

11. In our opinion, the decision of
the
Supreme
Court
in
Ayurveda
Pharmacy and Another Vs. State of Tamil
Nadu (Supra) squarely applies to the facts
of the present case. In that decision it was
held by the Supreme Court that while it is
open
to
the
legislature
or
State
Government of select different rats of tax
for
different
categories,
where
the
commodities belong to the same class or
category there must be a rational basis for
discriminating between on the commodity
and another for the purpose of imposing
tax (vide para 6) (We, therefore, hold that
merely because of different compositions
of N.P.K. discrimination could not have
been made against N.P.K. 23:23:0 sold by
the petitioner. Hence, we allow the
petition and direct that the respondents
shall not realize tax on the sale of N.I.K.
23:23:0
from
the
petitioner
from
10.4.1995 to 31.3.1996.)

$33(//$7( -85,6',&7,21
$33(//$7( -85,6',&7,21
&5,0,1$/ 6,'(
&5,0,1$/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 86 75,3$7+, -
7+( +21·%/( 86 75,3$7+, -

&ULPLQDO 5HYLVLRQ 1R RI

7DMXGGLQ
«5HYLVLRQLVW

 ( In Jail )
9HUVXV
6WDWH RI 83
«2SS 3DUW\

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HYLVLRPLVW
6KUL ,0 .KDQ
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQW
$*$

-XYHQLOH -XVWLFH $FW 6V DQG

%DLO
5HIXVDO
WR
JUDQW
±
ZKHQ
MXVWLILHG
+HOG ± 3DUD DQG
,W LV WUXH WKDW LQ WKH LQVWDQW FDVH WKHUH LV
QR PHQWLRQ RI WKH FULPLQDO RU FULPLQDOV LQ
ZKRVH
DVVRFLDWLRQ
RU
FRQWDFW
WKH
DSSOLFDQW PD\ FRPH LI KH LV UHOHDVHG RQ
EDLO EXW WKH -XYHQLOH &RXUW DV ZHOO DV WKH
$SSHOODWH &RXUW KDG DOVR KHOG WKDW WKH
UHOHDVH RI DSSOLFDQW RQ EDLO ZRXOG H[SRVH
KLP WR PRUDO GDQJHU DQG ZRXOG DOVR
3All] Tajuddin V. State of U.P. 328
GHIHDW WKH HQGV RI MXVWLFH -XYHQLOH &RXUW
KDV DOVR PHQWLRQHG WKH FDVH ZKLFK DUH
 LQ QXPEHU LQ ZKLFK KH LV LQYROYHG
/LVW
RI
DERYH
FDVHV
VKRZV
WKDW
WKH
DSSOLFDQW ZDV LQYROYHG LQ FDVHV XQGHU
6HFWLRQ RI *RRQGD $FW ,3&
 ,3& &U 3& DQG ,3&
7KH
&ULPLQDO
DQWHFHGHQWV
RI
WKH
DSSOLFDQW FOHDUO\ LQGLFDWH WKDW KLV UHOHDVH
ZRXOG H[SRVH KLP WR PRUDO GDQJHU ,W
DOVR VKRZV WKDW KH LV KDUGHQHG FULPLQDO
DQG
LI
UHOHDVHG
RQ EDLO ZRXOG DJDLQ
LQGXOJH LQ YDULRXV QDWXUH RI FDVHV DQG
WKHUHIRUH WKH HQGV RI MXVWLFH ZRXOG EH
GHIHDWHG
7KHUHIRUH
LQ
WKLV
FDVH
FRQGLWLRQV
QR

DQG

H[LVW
DQG
WKHUHIRUH WKH FDVH ODZ UHOLHG RQ E\ WKH
OHDUQHG
FRXQVHO
IRU
WKH
DSSOLFDQW
LV
GLVWLQJXLVKDEOH
7KXV LW LV FOHDU WKDW WKH DSSOLFDQW KDV
FULPLQDO KLVWRU\ DQG KLV WHQGHQF\ LV WR
LQGXOJH LQ FULPH DQG LI UHOHDVHG RQ EDLO
ZRXOG H[SRVH KLP WR PRUDO GDQJHU DQG
ZRXOG
GHIHDW
WKH
HQGV
RI
MXVWLFH
7KHUHIRUH KLV EDLO ZDV ULJKWO\ UHIXVHG
&DVH /DZ GLVFXVVHG
 $&&

By the Court

1. This revision has been filed
against the order dated 31.8.2000 passed
by Session Judge, Agra in Juvenile
Appeal No. 114/2000 dismissing the
appals
arising
out
of
order
dated
25.8.2000 passed by Juvenile Judge, Agra
in crime no. 274/2000 under Section
18/20 N.D.P.S. Act, rejecting the bail
applicant

2. The applicant was apprehended
by Police of P.S. Mantola, District Agra
under Section 18/20 N.D.P.S. Act. He
was produced before Special Judge,
N.D.P.S. Act, who found him juvenile
and transferred the case before Juvenile
Judge. The applicant moved application
for releasing him on bail on the ground
that he was juvenile and under Section 18
of Juvenile Justice Act. 1986 he ought to
be released on bail.

3. The learned Juvenile Judge held
that the applicant in juvenile. On the point
of bail he held that the applicant was
wanted in as many as 10 cases under
various Section of I.P.C., Goonda Act.
and 110 Cr. P.C. and therefore he was
likely to bring into association with any
known criminals and the ends of justice
would
be
defeated.
With
these
observations
he
rejected
the
bail
application.

4. Aggrieved with the said order, the
applicant filed appeals before the Sessions
Judge, Agra under Section 37 of juvenile
Justice Act. The Appellate Court found
that during last three years the applicant
had been challenged in as many as 10
criminal cases including those under
Section 294, 307 I.P.C. and 3 Goonds
Act. Now he was been arrested under
Section 18 of N.D.P.S. Act. This fact by
itself goes to show that applicant is of
hardened criminal nature and his release
would expose to moral danger and would
expose
to
time
to
other
hardened
criminals. Thus, the end of justice would
be defeated, if he is released on bail with
these observations, he dismissed the
appeal.

5. Aggrieved by above order, the
applicant filed this revision under Section
38 Juvenil Justice Act.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the
applicant and perused the orders of the
Juvenile Justice as well as Appellate
Court.
329 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000
7. The learned counsel for the
applicant contended that the release of
 applicant on bail was rejected on the
ground that it was likely to bring him into
as ciation with any known criminals but
the
criminals
were
not
known
an
therefore, bail was wrongly refused. He
has also placed reliance on a Single Judge
decision of this Court Rais vs State of
U.P., 1991 (28) ACC 484. On the other
hand, learned A.G.A. contended that the
applicant is a hardened criminal and there
is finding that his release would expose
him to moral danger and would also
defeat the ends of justice and therefore,
his bail was rightly refused.

8. Section 18 of the juvenile act
reads as under:-

Bail and custody of juveniles. (1)
When any person accused of a bailable
or non-bailable offence and apparently a
juvenile is arrested or detained or appears
or is brought before a Juvenile Court,
such
person
shall,
notwithstanding
anything contained in the Code of
Criminal procedure,1973(2 of 1974), or in
any other law for the time being in force,
be released on bail with or without surety
but he shall not be so released if there
appear reasonable grounds for believing
that the release is likely to bring him into
association with any known criminal or
expose him to moral danger or that his
release would defeat the ends of Justice.

(2) When such person having been
arrested is not released on bail under
sub-section (1) by the officer-in charge of
the police station, such officer shall cause
him to be kept in an observation home
or a place of safety in the prescribed
manner (but not in a police station or jail,
until he can be brought before a Juvenile
Court.

(3) When such person is not
released on bail under sub-section (1) by
the Juvenile Court it shall, instead of
committing him to prison, make an order
sending him to an observation home or a
place of safety for such period during the
pendency of the inquiry regarding him as
may be specified in the order.

9. It has not been disputed that the
applicant is a juvenile as defined in the
Juvenile Justice Act. The restrictions
imposed on release of applicant on bail
are as under:-

(1) If there appear reasonable
grounds for believing that the release is
likely to bring him into association with
any known criminal; or
(2) expose him to moral danger, or
(3) that his release would defeat the
ends of justice.

10. In the case of Rais Vs. State of
U.P. (supra ) the release of petitioner on
bail was refused only on the ground that
he may come into the contact with
association of any known criminals. The
lower Courts have not brought the case of
petitioner within clauses 2 and 3
mentioned above. It was held that there
was no proper evidence before the two
Courts be low. Registration of case
under Section 399, 402 I.P.C. on the
same date of recovery against the
petitioner was not sufficient for coming
to the conclusion that the petitioner was
likely
to
come
into
contact
with
association of any known criminals. The
word " know" has not used by the
parliament
in
the
section
without
purpose. By use of word " known" the
parliament requires that the Court must
3All] Tajuddin V. State of U.P. 330
know full particulars of the criminals with
which the delinquent is likely to come
into association. There is no such
evidence or finding. It appears that the
procedure under Section 19 of the act
was also not allowed . The parent or
guardian or Probation Officer was not
informed about the juvenile's arrest.
Considering the circumstances of the
case it was found that Appellate Court
as well as, Juvenile Magistrate had erred
in not releasing the juvenile on bail.

11. In the said case, the refusal of a
juvenile on bail was only on the ground
that if he would be released, it would
likely to bring him into association with
any known criminals. There was evidence
to show as to who was the criminal or
criminals in whose association Juvenile
may come after release. The three
conditions laid down in Section 18 are
independent and according to wordings
of Section 18 the bail may be refused if
any of the conditions referred to above
exist.

12. It is true that in the instant case
there is no mention of the criminal or
criminals in whose association or contact
the applicant may come if he is released
on bail, but the Juvenile Court as well as
the Appellate Court had also held that
the release of applicant on bail would
expose him to moral danger and would
also defeat the ends of justice. Juvenile
Court has also mentioned the cases, which
are 10 ins number, in which he is
involved. List of above shows that the
applicant was involved in cases under
Section 3 of Goonda Act, 307 I.P.C., 323,
353 I.P.C. Cr.P.C. and 294 I.P.C. The
criminal antecedents of the applicant
clearly indicate that his release would
expose him to moral danger. It also shows
that he is hardened criminal and if
released on bail would again indulge in
various nature of cases and therefore, the
ends of justice would be defeated.
Therefore, in this case, conditions no.2
and 3 exist and therefore, the case law
relied on by the learned counsel for the
applicant is distinguishable.

13. Thus it is clear that the applicant
has criminal history and his tendency is to
indulge in crime and released on bail
would expose him to moral danger and
would defeat the ends of justice.
Therefore, he was rightly refused bail.
The revision has no force and is,
accordingly, dismissed and the Juvenile
Court is directed to follow the procedure
given in Sub Section (3) of Section 18 of
Juvenile Justice Act.1986.
---------