Judgment

Bose J.- The appellant was convicted under S. 7, Jaipur Opium Act and fined Rs.50. The case as such is trivial but the High Court of Rajasthana in Jaipur granted special leave to appeal as an important point touching the vires of the Act arises. We will state the facts chronologically.

2. It is conceded that the Rulers of Jaipur had full powers of Government including those of legislation. On 7-9-1922, the late Maharaja died and at the time of his death his successor, the present Maharaja, was a minor. Accordingly, the Crown representative appointed a Council of Ministers to look after the Government and administration of the State during the Maharaja s minority

3. On 11-12-1923, this Council passed a Resolution which purported to enact the Jaipur Opium Act, and the only question is whether the mere passing of the Resolution without promulgation or publication in the Gazette, or other means to make the Act known to the public, was sufficient to make it law. We are of opinion that it was not. But before giving our reasons for so holding, we will refer to some further facts.

4. About the same time (that is to say, in the year 1923- we have not been given the exact date) the same Council enacted the Jaipur Laws Act, 1923. Section 3 (b) of this Act provided as follows : "3. Subject to the prerogative of the Ruler the law to be administered by the Court of Jaipur State shall be as follows: * * * * (b) All the regulations now in force within the said territories, and the enactments and regulations that may hereafter be passed from time to time by the State and published in the Official Gazette." This law came into force on 1-11-1924.

5. It is admitted that the Jaipur Opium Act was never published in the Gazette either before or after 1-11-1924. But it is contended that that was not necessary because it was a "regulation" already in force on that date.

6. The only other fact of consequence is that on19-5-1938. S. 1, Jaipur opium Act, was amended by the addition of sub-s. (c) which ran as follows "(c) It shall come into force from 1- 9-1924." The offence for which the appellant was convicted took place on 8-10-1948.

7. Dealing first with the last of these Acts, namely the one of 19 -5-1938, we can put that on one side at once because, unless the Opium Act was valid when made, the mere addition of a clause fourteen years later stating that it shall come into force at a date fourteen years earlier would be useless. In the year 1938, there was a law which required all enactments after 1- 11-1924 to be published in the Gazette. Therefore, if the Opium Act was not a valid Act on that date it could not be validated by the publication of only one section of it in the Gazette fourteen years later. The Jaipur Laws Act of 1923 required the whole of the enactment to be published, therefore publication of only one section would not validate it if it was not already valid. We need not consider whether a law could be made retroactive so as to take effect from 1924 by publication in 1938 though that point was argued. That throws us back to the position in 1923 and raises the question whether a law could be brought into operation by a mere resolution of the Jaipur Council

8. We do not know what laws were operative in Jaipur regarding the coming into force of an enactment in that State. We were not shown any, nor was our attention drawn to any custom which could be said to govern the matter. In the absence of any special law or custom, we are of opinion that it would be against the principles of natural justice to permit the subjects of a State to be punished or penalised by laws of which they had no knowledge and of which they could not even with the exercise of reasonable diligence have acquired any knowledge. Natural justice requires that before the law can become operative it must be promulgated or published. It must be broadcast in some recognisable way so that all men may know what it is; or at the very least, there must be some special