SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
9th April, 1957
S.R. DAS, C.J.I., VENKATARAMA AYYAR, SINHA, S.K. DAS AND GAJENDRAGADKAR, JJ.
R. M. D. Chamarbaugwalla and another, Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and another, Respondents.
M/S. Sharma Magazine, a Firm, Petitioners
Versus
Union of India, Respondent.
M/S. Hind Shabda Rachana Harifai, Petitioners
Versus
Union of India, Respondent.
Shri Chaman Lal Khanna, Petitioner
Versus
Union of India, Respondent.
Writ Petns. Nos. 78, 79, 80, 93 and 152 of 1956. Writ Petn. No. 78 of 1956.
Writ Petn. No. 79 of 1956.
Writ. Petn. No. 80 of 1956.
Writ Petn. No. 93 of 1956.
Writ Petn. No. 152 of 1956.
In Petn. Nos. 78, 79 and 80 of 1956:
Advocates appeared
Sir N. P. Engineer, Senior Advocate, (Mr. N.A. Palkhiwala, Advocate and M/s. R. A. Gagrat and G. Gopalkrishna Advocates of Messrs. Gagrat & Co. with him), for Petitioners. 630
In Petn. No. 93 of 1956:
Mr. Ganpat Rai, Advocate, for Petitioner. In Petn. No. 152 of 1956:
M/s. K. C. Jain and B. P. Maheshwari, Advocates, for Petitioners.
In Petn. Nos. 78/56 and 152/56 and In Petns. Nos. 79, 80 and 93 of 1956:
Mr. C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India (Messrs. Porus A. Mehta and R. H. Dhebar, Advocates with him), for Respondents.
In Petn. No. 78 of 1956.
Mr. G. R. Ethirajulu Naidu, Advocate-General, Mysore (M/s. Porus, A. Mehta and T. M. Sen, Advocates with him), for Respondent No. 2.
-held, protection is available only to lawful trading activities. Gambling is not a trade but res extra commercium and does not fall within those articles. Prize competition involving substantial skill is not gambling but business activities within Art. 19 (1) (g)
-see decision in R.M.D.C. v. Union of India, AIR 1957 SC 628=1956 SCA 886=1956 SCJ 574 = 1957 SCR 930 = 1957 SCJ 593.
Judgement
VENKATARAMA AYYAR, J. - Pursuant to resolutions passed by the legislatures of several States under Art. 252 cl. (1) of the Constitution, Parliament enacted Prize Competitions Act, (42 of 1955), hereinafter referred to as the Act, and by a notification issued on 31-3-1956, the Central Government brought it into force on 1-4-1956. The petitioners before us are engaged in promoting and conducting prize competitions in different States of India, and they have filed the present petitions under Art. 32 questioning the validity of some of the provisions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder.
2. It will be convenient first to refer to the provisions of the Act and of the rules, so far as they are material for the purpose of the present petitions. The object of the legislation is, as stated in the short title and in the preamble, to provide for the control and regulation of prize competitions. Section 2 (d) of the Act defines prize competition as meaning any competition (whether called a cross-word prize competition, a missing-word prize competition, a picture prize competition or by any other name), in which prizes are offered for the solution of any puzzle based upon the building up, arrangement, combination or permutation of letters, words or figures. Sections 4 and 5 of the Act are the provisions which are impugned as unconstitutional, and they are as follows:
"4. No person shall promote or conduct any prize competition or competitions in which the total value of the prize (whether in cash or otherwise) to be offered in any month exceeds one thousand rupees : and in every prize competition, the number of entries shall not exceed two thousand.
5. Subject to the provisions of S. 4, no person shall promote any prize competition or competitions in which the total value of the prize or prizes (whether in cash or otherwise) to be offered in any month does not exceed one thousand rupees unless he has obtained in this behalf a licence granted in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder.
Then follow provisions as to licensing, maintaining of accounts and penalties for violation there of. Section 20 confers power on the State Governments to frame rules for carrying out the purpose of the Act. In exercise of the powers conferred by this section, the Central Government has framed rules for Part C States, and they have been, in general, adopted by all the States. Two of these rules, namely, Rules 11 and 12 are impugned by the petitioners as unconstitutional, and they are as follows:
11. Entry fee. - (1) Where an entry fee is charged in respect of a prize competition, such fee shall be paid in money only and not in any other manner.
(2) The maximum amount of any entry shall not exceed Rs. 1/- where the total value or the prize or prizes to be offered is rupees one thousand but not less than rupees five hundred; and in all other cases the maximum amount of an entry fee shall be at the following rates, namely -
(a) as, 8/- where the total value of the prize or prizes to be offered is less than rupees five hundred but not less than rupees two hundred and fifty, and
(b) as, 4/- where the total value of the prize or prizes to be offered is less than rupees two hundred and fifty.
12. Maintenance of Register. - Every licensee shall maintain in respect of each prize competition for which a licence has been granted a register in Form C and shall, for the purpose of ensuring that not more than two thousand entries are received for scrutiny for each such competitions, take the following steps, that is to say, shall -
"(a) arrange to receive all the entries only at the place of business mentioned in the license;
(b) serially number the entries according to their order of receipt;
(c) post the relevant particulars of such entries in the register in Form C as and when the entries are received and in any case not later than the close of business on each day., and
(d) accept for scrutiny only the first two thousand entries
Relied on : Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar and other
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.