SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1951 Supreme(Cal) 145

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Harries, Das, Banerjee
RAMANANDA AGARWALLA - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
Cri Misc. Case 185  Of  1951
Decided On : MAY 30, 1951

Advocates Appeared:
Arun Kumar Dutt, KISHORE MUKHARJI, M.N.Ghosh, N.K.Sen, S.M.BOSE, SUDHANSU SEKHAR MUKHERJI

The powers given by Sections 3 and 4, Essential Supplies Act, to the Govt. themselves to make orders or to delegate powers to make orders to other authorities is not a delegation of legislative authority.

Headnote:

ESSENTIAL SUPPLIES ACT - CONSTITUTIONALITY - DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER - VALIDITY OF ORDERS - FOODGRAINS CONTROL ORDER - PRODUCER - BURDEN OF PROOF - ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE - REVISION - ACQUITTAL.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners were charged with contravention of Section 10(1), Bengal Foodgrains Control Order, 1945, which had been made under powers granted by the Essential Supplies Act (Act XXIV [24] of 1946). The prosecution alleged that the petitioners had in their possession more than fifty maunds of rice without a permit. The learned Magistrate found the petitioners guilty and convicted them of an offence Under Section 7, Essential Supplies Act read with the Foodgrains Control Order. Each of the accused was sentenced to six months' R.I. and the rice was confiscated.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the Essential Supplies Act was in force on 23-5-1950 when the offence was alleged to have been committed. The Court also held that Sections 3 and 6, Essential Supplies Act, were not ultra vires the Const. Ind. as these sections did not delegate legislative powers which was not permissible under the Constitution.

Issues: 1. Whether the Essential Supplies Act was in force on 23-5-1950? 2. Whether Sections 3 and 6, Essential Supplies Act, were ultra vires the Const. Ind.? 3. Whether the orders made under the Essential Supplies Act were valid? 4. Whether the Foodgrains Control Order was valid? 5. Whether the petitioners were producers? 6. Who has the burden of proof in a criminal case? 7. Whether additional evidence can be allowed in a criminal case?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Essential Supplies Act was in force on 23-5-1950 by virtue of the President's Adaptation Order of 26-1-1950, which was made under Article 372(2) of the Constitution. 2. Sections 3 and 6, Essential Supplies Act, were not ultra vires the Const. Ind. as they did not delegate legislative powers. The powers given by Sections 3 and 4, Essential Supplies Act, to the Govt. themselves to make orders or to delegate powers to make orders to other authorities is not a delegation of legislative authority. 3. The orders made under the Essential Supplies Act were valid as they were made under powers granted by the Act and were not ultra vires the Constitution. 4. The Foodgrains Control Order was valid as it was made under powers granted by the Essential Supplies Act. 5. The burden of proof in a criminal case rests on the prosecution. The accused is presumed to be innocent until his guilt is established beyond all reasonable doubt. 6. Additional evidence should only be admitted in exceptional cases and it should never be admitted and allowed merely to fill up gaps left by the prosecuting authorities in the case.

Final Decision: The Court set aside the orders of the learned Sessions Judge and the trial Magistrate and acquitted the accused.

HARRIES, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS Court issued a Rule upon the Disk. Mag. of Burdwan to show cause why the records of this case should not be transferred to this Court for the decision of certain constitutional points which were said to arise in the case. The records were duly transferred and this Court has heard arguments on the constitutional points under the powers granted to it by Article 228 of the Const. Ind.

( 2 ) THE petnrs. were charged with contravention of Section 10 (1), Bengal Foodgrains Control Order, 1945 which had been made under powers granted by the Essential Supplies Act (Act XXIV [24] of 1946 ).

( 3 ) THE case for the prosecution was that on 23-5-1950 the petnrs. had in their possession more than fifty maunds of rice without a permit. The case was that they had hidden this rice amounting in all to fifty maunds and five seers in a number of barrels which were concealed in a lorry or truck. The learned Mag. found the petnrs. guilty and convicted them of an offence Under Section7, Essential Supplies Act read with the Foodgrains Control Order. Each of the accused was sentenced to six months' R. I. and the rice was confiscated.

( 4 ) THE petnrs. preferred an appeal to the Court of the learned Ses. J. of Burdwan. He found that the prosecution had not established the case, but in his view the prosecution were entitled to an opportunity to adduce further evidence to establish the charges. The case was therefore remanded to the Court of the learned Mag. for additional evidence and the learned Mag. was directed to return the record to the Court of the Ses. J. after taking the additional evidence and recording the statements of the petnrs Under Section 342, Cr. P. C.

( 5 ) AT this stage an appln. was made to this Court under Article 228 of the Constitution. It was contended that the case raised a number of constitutional points. In the first place, it was contended that the Essential Supplies Act was not in force on 23-5-1950 when the offence was alleged to have been committed. There was a further contention that Sections 3 and 6, Essential Supplies Act, were ultra vires the Const. Ind. as these sections delegated legislative powers which was not permissible under the Constitution.

( 6 ) WE have heard the learned Advocate for petnrs. and the learned Advocate General on behalf of the State and we are satisfied that there is no force in the contentions put forward by the petnrs.

( 7 ) I shall deal firstly with the contention that. the Essential Supplies Act was not in force on 23-5-1950 and therefore no offence could have been committed.

( 8 ) THE Essential Supplies Act, 1946, was enacted under powers granted to the Central Legislature in India by an English Statute, India (Central Govt. and Legislature) Act, 1946, 9 and 10 Geo. VI, ch. 39. This Act amended the Govt. of India Act 1935 and empowered the Central Legislature to legislate on matters which they would otherwise have no power to do. The power given to the Indian Legislature was a power to enact a temporary statute and the duration of the legislative powers granted by the English Act is dealt with in Section 4 of that Act. That section is in these terms :"the period mentioned in the two last preceding sections is the period of one year beginning with the data on which the Proclamation of Emergency in force at the passing of this Act ceases to operate or, if the Governor-General by public notfu. 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 than five years from the date on which the Proclamation of Emergency ceases to operate. "

( 9 ) IT is common ground that Emergency ceased to operate on 1-4 1946, and by a public notfn. the Governor-General




































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top