1. Sale and transport of controlled textiles in violation of the Essential Supplies Act — dispute over the Act's applicability to an excluded area and existence of mens rea. (Para 2 , 10 )
Back
Next 
1951 Supreme(SC) 56
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.H. Kania, CJI., M. Patanjali Sastri, B.K. Mukherjea, S.R. Das, N. Chandrasekhara Aiyar, JJ.
Joylal Agarwala – Appellant
Versus
The State – Respondent
Union of India - Intervaner
Criminal Appeals Nos. 7 of 1950 and 25 of 1951
Decided On : 04-10-1951
Advocates appeared
Shri Ajit Kumar Datta and Shri S. N. Mukherjea, Advocates, instructed by Shri R. R. Biswas Agent for Appellant (in both the Appeals); Shri B. Sen Advocate, instructed by Shri P. K. Bose, Agent - for the State (in both the Appeals); Shri G. N. Joshi Advocate, instructed by Shri P. A. Mehta, Agent for the Intervener (in Cri. Appeal No 7).
Shri Ajit Kumar Datta and Shri S. N. Mukherjea, Advocates, instructed by Shri R. R. Biswas Agent for Appellant (in both the Appeals); Shri B. Sen Advocate, instructed by Shri P. K. Bose, Agent - for the State (in both the Appeals); Shri G. N. Joshi Advocate, instructed by Shri P. A. Mehta, Agent for the Intervener (in Cri. Appeal No 7).
An Act extended to an excluded area by a Governor's notification remains in force as long as the Act itself is operative. Extensions of the Act's duration through prescribed legislative resolutions are valid and do not constitute an illegal delegation of legislative power.
Headnote:(A) Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946 - Sections 7 and 8 - Government of India Act, 1935 - Section 92(1) - India (Central Government and Legislature) Act, 1946 - Section 4 - Indian Independence Act, 1947 - Sections 9 and 19(4) - Extension of Act to excluded area - Validity of extension of life of the Act - Where a Governor extends an Act to an excluded area without specifying a particular period for its applicability, the Act remains in force in that area as long as it remains in force in the rest of the country (Para 6) - Resolutions passed by the legislative body to extend the life of an Act, where the mechanism for such extension is provided within the Act itself, are valid and do not constitute an impermissible delegation of legislative power (Paras 7, 8).
(B) Criminal Law - Mens rea - Inference of criminal intent - False statements made by the accused regarding the nature of goods being transported and the failure to produce required permits warrant the inference of criminal intent (Para 11).
Facts of the case:
Two appeals were filed against convictions under the Essential Supplies Act. In the first instance, a salesman was convicted for selling textile cloth above the controlled price in an excluded area. The appellant contended that the Act was not in force in that area because the initial period of the Act had expired and a fresh notification by the Governor was required after the Act's life was extended. In the second instance, an individual was convicted for loading cloth without a permit, challenging the validity of the Act's extension and the existence of mens rea.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Governor's notification extending the Act to the excluded area remained valid as long as the Act itself remained in force. The extensions of the Act's duration by the legislative body were legally sound as they followed the procedure established by the Act. In the second case, the accused's conduct, specifically providing false information about the goods and lacking a permit, was sufficient to infer mens rea.
Issues: Whether a fresh notification by the Governor was necessary to continue the operation of the Act in an excluded area after the general life of the Act was extended; whether resolutions by the legislative body could validly extend the life of the Act; and whether mens rea could be inferred from the conduct of the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: An Act extended to an excluded area by a Governor's notification without a specified duration continues to operate as long as the Act remains in force generally. Extensions of the Act's duration via a mechanism prescribed within the Act itself do not amount to a delegation of legislative power. Mens rea can be inferred from circumstantial evidence, such as misleading statements and the absence of mandatory permits.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the Essential Supplies Act remained in force in an excluded area without fresh notifications and whether criminal intent was present. (Para 5 , 11 )
3. The Governor's notification extending the Act to an excluded area remains valid as long as the Act is in force nationwide; mens rea can be inferred from conduct. (Para 6 , 7 , 11 )
4. A notification applying an Act to an excluded area continues its operation as long as the Act remains in force generally, unless specifically limited. (Para 6 )
5. Appeals dismissed and convictions restored. (Para 9 , 12 )
6. Does a notification applying an Act to an excluded area require renewal when the Act's general life is extended?
No. If the Governor's notification extends an Act to an excluded area without specifying a particular period, the Act remains in force in that district as long as it remains in force in the rest of India. (Para 6 )
7. Could the Constituent Assembly legally extend the life of the Essential Supplies Act?
Yes. Under adaptations made by the Governor-General via the Indian Independence Act, 1947, the Constituent Assembly acquired the powers of Parliament to extend the Act's operation. (Para 7 )
8. Does the mechanism for extending an Act's life in installments constitute an illegal delegation of legislative power?
No. When the legislature fixes the duration of an Act but provides a specific machinery to reach the maximum period in installments, there is no delegation of legislative power. (Para 8 )
9. How can criminal intent (mens rea) be inferred in cases involving the unauthorized movement of controlled goods?
Mens rea can be inferred from the accused's conduct, such as providing false statements about the nature of the goods being transported and the failure to produce a required permit. (Para 11 )
Judgment
Chandrasekhara Aiyar J. - These two criminal appeals are from convictions of the appellants by the High Court at Calcutta. In the first case. leave to appeal to this Court was granted by the High Court under Art. 134 (1) (e) of the Constitution of India. In the second case, special leave to appeal was granted by this Court under Art. 136 (1) of the Constitution. The appeals heard together, but as they are by different parties and the facts are different, it is desirable to have two separate judgments. Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 1950
2. The appellant, Joylal Agarwala, who was a salesman 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 excess of the controlled price. For this contravention of the provisions of Cl. 24 (1) of the Cotton Textiles Control Order, 1948, he was convicted by the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Darjeeling under S. 7, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers that (Act XXIV [24] of 1946) (hereinafter referred as the Essential Supplies Act), and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment. On appeal to the Sessions Judge, the appellant Was acquired on two grounds, viz., (1) that no sanction was previously obtained for the prosecution as required by Cl. 96 of the Cotton Textiles Control Order, and (2) that the Essential Supplies Act was not in force in the district of Darjeeling on the date of the occurrence. On appeal to the High Court the State of West Bengal, the point about the absence of sanction under Cl. 36 of the Control Order was given up by the present appellant, as its necessity had been abolished by a later Notification 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 occurrence, viz., 14-10-1949. The acquittal of the appellant was set aside, the order of conviction passed by the Magistrate was restored, and the appellant was sentenced to four months rigorous imprisonment.
3. To understand the main legal argument as to whether the Essential Supplies Act of 1946 was in force at the time of the alleged commission of the offence, it is necessary to set out the relevant provisions of a few Acts and Orders and their dates. The Essential Supplies Act came into force on 19-11-1946. Section 92 (1 ) of the Government of India Act. 1935 provided is 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 that the Act shall in its application to the area . . . . have effect subject to such exceptions or modifications as he thinks fit." In exercise of the powers conferred on him by this section, the Governor of Bengal by a notification published on 14-12-1946 directed that the Essential Supplies Act shall apply to the district of Darjeelingee which was an excluded area.
4. Section 1(3), Essential Supplies Act provides that it shall cease to have effect in the expiration of the period mentioned in S. 4 of the India (Central Government and Legislature) Act, 1946 (9 and 10 Geo. 6, ch. 39). Section 4 of the latter Act provides as follows : . . .... .the period mentioned . . . is the period of one year beginning with the date on which the Proclamation 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 beginning with that date : Provided that if and so often as a resolution approving the extension of the said period is passed by both Houses of Parliament, the said period shall be extended for a further period of twelve months from the date on which it would otherwise expire so, however, that it does not in any case continue for more tha
