Singh v. State of Punjab (1994) 3 SCC 569; and Bharat Hydro Power Corpn & Ors.

Judgment

[2008] 12 S.C.R. 1083 0 ·---f STATE OF MAHARASHTRA II. BHARAT SHANTI LAL SHAH & ORS. (Criminal Appeal Nos. 1376-1379 of 2008) SEPTEMBER 1, 2008 ' -* [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI, R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ] A B .. ,.._ ... ~ " Constitution of India, 1950: Article 254 - Seventh Schedule - List I - Entry 31 - List c II Entries 1 and 2, List Ill - Entries 1,2 and 12 - Provisions of Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 authorising interception of wire, electronic and oral communication in order to prevent commission of organized crime or to collect evidence to commission of such an organized crime - HELD: D Are constitutionally valid - Grounds for interception of wire, electronic and ·oral communication under the provisions of MCOCA are distinct and different from those covered bys.

5(2) of Telegraph Act - The subjects and areas covered by two Acts cannot be said to be identical and common - Even E otherwise, when the area and subject of legislation is also covered within purview of the Entry of State List, and Concurrent List, incidental encroachment to an entry in the Union List will not, in view of doctrine of pith and substance, make a law invalid and such an incidental encroachment will not make the legislation ultra vires the Constitution - Doctrine of Pith and Substance - Telegraph Act, 1885- s.5(2) - Maharashtra Interpretation of Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 - Constitution. F ~ -~-{ Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999: ss. 13 to 16- Constitutional validity of- HELD: Provisions are constitutionally valid - The Act is covered under Entries 1 and 2 of List II and is also relatable to Entries 1,2 and 12 of 1083 Gl H 1084 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.

A List Ill of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution-Provisions are not violative of Article 21 of the Constitution - Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 21 and 254 - Seventh Schedule, List II Entries 1 and 2 - List Ill - Entries 1,2 and 12 - Telegraph Act, 1885 - s. 5(2). B s.21(5) - Restriction on granting bail - HELD: Decision of the High Court striking down the words "or under any other Act" occurring in sub-s. (5) of s. 21 is upheld - Provision of denying a person right to seek bail under MCOCA if he was on bail earlier for commission of an offence under any other c Act suffers from vice of unreasonable classification - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14. D ss. 2(d), (e) and (f) - "Continuing unlawful activity", "organized crime", and "organized crime syndicate" - Definition of - HELD: There is no vagMeness in the definitions - Provisions do not suffer from class legislation and are not viola~ive of Article 14 of the Constitution - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14. .I,.. ss.

3(3) and (5) - HELD: High Court has rightly observed E· that in such penal provisions mens rea is always presumed as integral part unless excluded expressly or by necessary intendment- Sub-sectionsf3)and (5) are to be read in the manner as mentioned in the judgment - Criminal Law - Mens rea. F G s. 4 - Words "at any time" - Connotation of - HELD: High Court has rightly held that 1hese words should be read to mean at any time after coming into force of the Act and the enactment is prospective in operation and not retrospective - Interpretation of Statute - Prospective operation of enactment. Interpretation of Constitution: Entries in the Lists of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India - HELD: Must receive liberal construction inspired by a broad and general spirit and not in a narrow H pedantic sense. )--- * -i ... ~ ).-~· - STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v.

BHARAT SHANTI LAL SHAH & ORS. 1085 ~ Interpretation of statutes: Presumption as to constitutionality of a statute - HELD: There is always a presumption of constitutionality in favour of a statute and while construing the same, every legally permissible effort should be made to keep the statute within the competence of State legislature. A B Respondent nos. 2 and 3 were arrested under the provisions of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA). They filed writ petitions before the High Court challenging the provisions of the Act. The c High Court struck down ss. 13 to 16 of the Act as being beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature; it also struck down sub-section (5) of s.21 of the Act, holding the same as violative of provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Aggrieved, the State Government filed the instant appeals. D Allowing the appeals in part, the Court >-- .;. HELD: 1.1 Though it is true that the State Legislature would not have power tolegislate upon any of the matters enumerated in the Union List but as per the doctrine of Pith and Substance there could not be any dispute with regard to the fact that if it could be shown that the area and subject of the legislation is also covered within the purview of the entry of the State List and the Concurrent ~ List, in that event incidental encroachment to an entry in. the Union List will not make a law invalid and such an incidental encroachment will not make the legislation ultra vires the Constitution. [para 30] [1108,B-C] E F ~ A.

S. Krishna v. State of Madras 1957 SCR 399; Kartar G