Sant.bat MalttofJ v. Kam/a P,ras1

In the first case, two criminal appeals are from convictions of the appellants by the High Court at Calcutta. appeal to this Court was granted by the High Court under article 134 ( 1) ( c) of . the Constitution of India. In the second case, special leave to appeal was granted by this Court under article 136(1) of the CoilSltitution. The appeals were heard together, but as they are by different parties and the facts are different, it is desir- able to have two separate judgments. Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 1950. imprisonment. On appeal The appellant, Joylal Agarwala, who was a sales- man in a retail shop in Pulbazar in the district of Darjeeling in the State of West Bengal, was charged with having sold a piece of textile cloth at a price in exces.<il of the controlled price. For this contravention of the provisions of clause 24(1) of the Cotton Tex- tiles Control Order, 1948, he was convicted by the Sub- Divisional Magistrate of Darjeeling under section 7 the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act (Act XXIV) of 1946 (hereinafter referred to as the Essenti; tl Supplies Act), and sentenced to .six months' rigorous the Sessions the appellant was acquitted on two grounds, Judge, viz., (1) that no sanction was previously obtained for the prosecution as required by clause 36 of the Cotton Textiles Control Order, and the Essential Supplies Act was not in force in the district of Dar- jeeling on the date of the occurrence. On appeal the High Court by the State of West Bengal, the point about the absence of sanction under clause 36 of the Control Order was given up by the present appellant as its necessity had been abolished by a later Notifica- tion of the Central Government. On the second point, the learned Judges of the High Court held that the Act was validly extended to the district of Darjeeling and was in force in that area on the date of the occur- rence, viz., 14-10-1949. The acquittal of the appellant (2) 1951 foylal Agarwala v. The State (,'handrauk_hara Aivar /. 130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1952! was set ·aside;: the order of conviction passed by the the appellant was · sen• Magistrate was restored, and tenced to four months' rigorous imprisonment. argument To understand the main whether the Essential Supplies Act of 1946 was m force at the time of the alleged commission of offence, it is necessary to set out the relevant provisions of a few Acts and Orders and their dates. The Es.5en- tial Supplies Act came into force on 19-11-1946. Section 92 ( 1) of the Government of India Act, 1935, provided as follows :- • ·' " ...... no Act of the Federal Legislature or of 'the Provincial Legislature, shall apply to an excluded area or a partially excluded area, unless the Governor by public notification so directs, and the Governor· in giving such a direction with respect to any Act may direct area,. ......... have effect subject to such exceptions or modifications as he thinks fit" the Act shall in its application In exercise of the powers conferred on him by this section, the . Governor of Bengal by a notification pub- that the lished on the 14th December, 1946, directed Essential Supplies Act shall apply ·.to the district of Darjeeling, \vhich was an excluded area. · Section 1(3) of the Essential Supplies Act provides that it· shall cease to have effect on the expiration of the period mentioned in section 4 ofthe India (Central Government and Legislature) Act, 1946 (9 & 10 Geo. 6, Ch. 39). Section 4 of provides as follows:-· latter Act "The period mentioned .... is the period of one year beginning with the date on which the Proclama- tion of Emergency in force at the passing of this Act ceases to operate or, if the Governor-General by publiC notification so directs, the period of two years begin- ning with that date : it and so Prov_ided a resolution the . said period is passed approving by both Houses of Parliament, the said period shall be extended for a further period of twelve months the extension of often as 1951 /oylal Agarwala v. T}ie State Charuir11Sek_hara Aiyar /. _, S.C.tt SUPREME COURT REPORTS 131 the date on which it would otherwise expire so, how-. ever, that it does not . in any case continue for more than five years from the date on which the Proclama- tion of Emergency ceases to operate." this notification, The Proclamation of Emergency referred to in this In the absence section ceased to operate on 31-3-1946. of a notification by the Governor-General under second part of the section, the Essential Supplies Act remained operative only till 31-3-1947, under the first part. The Governor-General, however, issued a notifi- cation on 3-3-1947 continuing its force for a period of the date of cessation of emergency. By 2 years from virtue of the Essential therefore, Supplies Act would remain in force till 31-3-1948. On 18-7-1947, the Indian Independence Act wa~ · passed, and India became a Dominion on 15c8-1947. Under the Indian Inde- section 9 read with section 19(4) of pendence Act, 1947, the Governor-General passed the words 14-8-1947, which substituted Order on "Dominion · Legislature" for "both · Houses of Parlia- the lndia(Central ment" in Government 'and Legislature) Act, 1946, and also introduced a new section 4A by way of adaptation, providing that the· powern of the Dominion Legislaturf shalt: be exercised by the Constituent Assembly, On 25-2-1948, . first the Essential resolution extending Supplies' Act by one year up to 31-3-1949. On 23-3-1949, a second · Assembly extending the life ·of the Act by one more year up to 31-3-1950. the ·Constituent Assembly passed resolution was pa~d by the provise to section 4 of the operation of In respect . of these Acts and notifications the appellant:- question were urged on behalf of firstly, whether the Governor's notification of the 14th December, 1946, continued the operation of the Essen- tial Supplies Act in the district of Darjeeling beyond the then period of life of the Act, namely, the period of one year from the date of cessation of emergency ; secondly, whether a fresh notification by the Governor under section 92 ( 1) of the Government of India Act the Essential was not necessary, after life of 1951 foylal Agorwala v. The SllJ/e CharulrllSe'/i/1ara Aiyor /. 132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1952] the Governor-General's Supplies Act was extended by notification of 3-3-1947; and thirdly, whether the reso- lutions passed by operate life of the Essential Supplies Act. the Constituent Assembly to extend the Now, is clear issued by It can be 2 years that under section 1(3) of the Essential Supplies Act, it shall cease to have effect on the expiration of the period mentioned in section 4 of the India (Central Government and Legislature) Act, 1946. The period mentioned that section is not the date of cessation of necessarily one year emergency. the Govemor- General by notification so directs, and it may go up t<> a maximum period of 5 years in instalments of 1 year each, under the proviso. The fixation of the period of operation of the Essential Supplies Act is thus not left the Act to any other enactment. It is provided by itself. As stated already, the notification of the 14th December, 1946, the Governor applied the Essential Supplies Act to the Darjeeling district, and its life was extended up to 31-3-1948 by the notification It is difficult to see why a of the Governor-General. fresh notification under section 92(1) of the Govern- ment of India Act is required to continue the life of the Act in the district of Darjeeling. The Governor's notification extended .tlo Darjeeling without its applicability specifying any panicular period for to that district, and it follows therefore that the Act would remain It is only if its remained in force in the rest of India. effect had ceased earlier than the coming into force of the Indian Independence Act and there was a re-enact- ment by the legislature which was. sought to be applied to an excluded area, that a notification by the Governor under section 92 (1) of the Government of India Act might be necessary. Otherwise, the question of a fresh notification does not arise. in force in the district so long as the Act Section 19( 4) ol the Indian Independence Act, 1947. provides as follows :- "In this Act, except so far as the context otherwise requires- 1951 Joylill Ag111'uiR111 v. Tbe Sttite Clitmth-tUe'/t."'11'11 Aiym: /. ~.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 133 References references include supplementing to the India Act, 1946 ; ........ " to the Government of · India Act, 1935, to any enactments amending or that Act, and, in particu1ar, references (Central Government and Legislature) .r .... .. The adaptations made by the Governor-General under sections 9 and 19 of th.e Indian Jndependence the words "Constituent Assembly" Act substituted in section 4 of the for "both Houses of Parliament" India (Central Government and Legislature) Act, and the Constituent Assembly by two resolutions of dif- the Essential ferent dates has. extended Supplies Act the adapta- till 31-3-1950. As soon as tions came into force by order of the Governor-General, the Constituent Assembly acquired the powers con- ferred on both Houses of Parliament under section 4 of the India (Central Government and Legislature) Act. The validity of the adaptations is beyond question. life of The case of fatindra Nath Gupta v. The Province of Bihlll' and Others(1) has no application here. case now before us, the Legislature has itself applied its mind and has fixed the duration of the· Act, but has left the machinery to reach the maximum period by to be worked out in a particular manner. instalments There is here no question of delegation at all, much less delegation of any legislative power. In The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed. Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 1951. In this case, the appellant Bichan Chand Molla was charged with loading 28 bags of millmade cloth from a truck into a specially chartered aircraft at the Dum Dum airport, on behalf of his employers, Messrs. Amarchand Pannalal, without a permit, as required under clause 4 (2) of the West Bengal Cotton Cloth. and Yam Movement Control Order, 1947. He was convict- ed under section 7 (1) Essential Supplies Act and sentenced to 9 months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000 by the read with section 8 of (1) (1949] F.C.R. 5%. ;g :t95l foyllll Aglll'Wllla v. . '£.ho Siate Ghahirasekhara • Aiyu /. 134 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1972] Ist Clas5 Magistrate of Barrackpore. The Sessions the appeal preferred Judge. of 24-Parganas dismissed by the accused. A revision application filed by him in the High Court shared the same fate . untenable reasons already The legal argument urged in this appeal was ·the same as in the earlier appeal, and has to be repelled stated. A special point was sought to be argued that the element of mens rea was wanting. But the the question was con- sidered by the High Court, and it was held that there are two facts from which means rea could be inferred. When questioned, the accused stated that he was load- ing handloom bales and not millmade cloth. He had no permit with him and was not able to produce any the cir- even from his employers. These facts under intent. cumstances warrant the inference of a criminal This appeal also will therefore stand dismissed. Agent for the appellant : R. R. Biswas. Agent for the respondent : P. K. Bose. Agent for the intervener: P. A. Mehta. !