Granting Bail Does Not Shield Foreign Nationals from Executive Action on Visa Violations: Delhi High Court Contempt Jurisdiction Cannot Be Misused to Resolve Substantive Disputes or Replace Execution Mechanisms: P&H High Court Eviction Proceedings Must Follow Principles of Natural Justice: Telangana High Court Quashes Eviction Order under Senior Citizens Act Limitation Law | Sufficient Cause Cannot Be Liberally Interpreted If Negligence or Inaction Is Apparent: Gujarat High Court Mere Pendency of Lease Renewal Requests Does Not Constitute Bona Fide Dispute: Calcutta High Court Upholds Eviction Proceedings Under Public Premises Act CGST | Declaratory Nature of Safari Retreats Ruling Mandates Reassessment of Input Tax Credit Claims: Kerala High Court Changing Rules of the Game Mid-Way Violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution: Rajasthan High Court Disapproval of a Relationship Does Not Constitute Abetment of Suicide Without Direct Instigation or Mens Rea: Supreme Court Limitation Period Under Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicle Act Cannot Defeat Victim’s Right to Compensation: Gujarat High Court Maintenance To Wife Cannot Be a Precondition for Bail: Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Section 438 CrPC Court Cannot Rewrite Contract When Vendor Lacks Ownership of the Property: Calcutta High Court Dismisses Appeal for Specific Performance Royalty Can Be Levied on Minor Minerals Like Brick Earth, Irrespective of Land Ownership: Supreme Court Bail in Heinous Crimes Must Be Granted with Adequate Reasons and Judicial Scrutiny: Supreme Court Judicial Review in Disciplinary Cases Is Limited to Fairness, Not Reappreciation of Evidence: Supreme Court Prolonged Consensual Relationship Cannot Be Criminalized as Rape on False Promise of Marriage: Madras High Court No Interference in Judgments Without Perversity or Legal Error Under Section 100 CPC: Andhra Pradesh HC

Upholds Second Proceedings Under Collection of Statistics Act: “Statistical Data Vital for Economic Policy-Making”: Karnataka HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Karnataka, headed by Justice M. Nagaprasanna, upheld the validity of the second proceedings under the Collection of Statistics Act, 2008, against M/S. Masturlal (Pvt.) Ltd. The court dismissed the petitioner’s claim of double jeopardy and emphasized the paramount importance of statistical data for economic policy-making.

The case pertained to the petitioner’s failure to furnish required statistical data to the Government of India’s National Sample Survey Office, thus violating Section 15(1) of the Collection of Statistics Act, 2008. In a previous proceeding, the petitioner had pleaded guilty, paid a fine, and the case was closed.

However, the respondent initiated a second proceeding under Section 15(2) of the Act, as the petitioner failed to furnish the necessary data even after the first conviction. The petitioner contended that this amounted to double jeopardy, as they were being vexed twice for the same offense.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna firmly rejected the double jeopardy claim, asserting that the second proceeding under Section 15(2) operates distinctly from the earlier conviction under Section 15(1). The court stressed that statistical data plays a pivotal role in economic policy-making and is crucial for meeting challenges posed by globalization and liberalization.

“The Act’s rigorous provisions aim to ensure diligent submission of statistical data, which forms the backbone of economic planning and policy formulation for the nation,” stated Justice Nagaprasanna in the judgment.

Furthermore, the court directed the concerned court to conclude the proceedings expeditiously and within six months from the receipt of the order.

This ruling reinforces the significance of adhering to statutory requirements in providing accurate statistical data, as it has far-reaching implications on economic development and international compliances.

Date of Decision: 28th July 2023

M/S. MASTURLAL (PVT.) LTD. vs GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/M_S_Masturlal_Pvt_Ltd_vs_Government_Of_India_on_28_July_2023_Karnt.HC_.pdf"]

Similar News