Back
High Court Of Calcutta
A. M. BHATTACHARJEE, AMULYA KUMAR NANDI
GOBARDHAN KARMAKAR - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION 483 Of 1984
Decided On : 04/12/1989
RICE MILLING INDUSTRY (REGULATION) ACT, 1958 - S. 9, 17A - WEST BENGAL RICE MILLING INDUSTRY (REGULATION) (WEST BENGAL AMENDMENT) ACT, 1974 - VALIDITY - LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURE - CONCURRENT LIST - ENTRY NO. 2 - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - INVESTIGATION OF OFFENCES - ENTRY NO. 52 OF UNION LIST - EXCLUSIVE LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION OF PARLIAMENT - OCCUPIED FIELD DOCTRINE - NOT APPLICABLE IN INDIA - STATE LEGISLATION ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE MAY OVERRIDE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 - PRESIDENT'S ASSENT REQUIRED - PUNISHMENT - REDUCTION - DELAY IN DISPOSAL OF REVISION - SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT SET ASIDE - FINE IMPOSED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was convicted and sentenced under S. 13 (1) of the Rice - Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958. The prosecution was initiated and investigated by the police and was instituted on a police report on the strength of the provisions of S. 17a of the Act, as inserted and S. 9 of the Act, as substituted, by the West Bengal Amendment. The petitioner challenged the validity of the West Bengal Amendment Act of 1974 on the ground that it was void as in view of Entry 52 of the Union List and the requisite declaration in respect of rice mills in S. 2 of the Parliamentary Act of 1958, rice mills became exclusively a subject for Parliamentary legislation and the State could no longer legislate in or on any matter relating to rice mills.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the West Bengal Amendment Act of 1974 was valid as it dealt with matters relating to Criminal Procedure, like investigation of offences and the like, matters which are evidently within the concurrent jurisdiction of the Union and the States, being Entry No. 2 of the Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. The court further held that the doctrine of "occupied field" may have no application in the Indian Constitutional Scheme in the manner in which it applies in the United States, wherefrom it is occasionally borrowed by us. Because, however pervasively or comprehensibly Parliament may purport to occupy a legislative field in the Concurrent List by an all-round legislation, under Art. 254 (2) of the Constitution, a later State Legislation would nevertheless prevail over the former, provided, the latter is assented to by the President.
Issues: 1. Whether the West Bengal Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) (West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1974 is void as it encroaches upon the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Parliament under Entry 52 of the Union List? 2. Whether the doctrine of "occupied field" applies in the Indian Constitutional Scheme in the same manner as it applies in the United States?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The West Bengal Amendment Act of 1974 is valid as it deals with matters relating to Criminal Procedure, like investigation of offences and the like, matters which are evidently within the concurrent jurisdiction of the Union and the States, being Entry No. 2 of the Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. 2. The doctrine of "occupied field" may have no application in the Indian Constitutional Scheme in the manner in which it applies in the United States, wherefrom it is occasionally borrowed by us. Because, however pervasively or comprehensibly Parliament may purport to occupy a legislative field in the Concurrent List by an all-round legislation, under Art. 254 (2) of the Constitution, a later State Legislation would nevertheless prevail over the former, provided, the latter is assented to by the President.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition and upheld the conviction of the petitioner. However, the court reduced the sentence of the petitioner from one month's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months to a fine of Rs. 4000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 2 months.
( 1 ) THIS revisional application by the petitioner is against his conviction and sentence in a prosecution under S. 13 (1) of the Rice - Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958. The Act is obviously a Parliamentary legislation enacted under Entry No. 52 of the Union List which relates to "industries, the control of which by the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in the public interest" and S. 2 of the Act contains the requisite declaration to the effect that "it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that the Union should take under its control the rice milling industry". It is manifest that as a result of such a declaration as in S. 2, Rice-Milling Industry has become exclusively a subject for Union legislation.
( 2 ) BY the West Bengal Act XXIV of 1974, being the Rice-Milling Industry (Regulation) (West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1974, the Union Legislation of 1958 has been amended whereby S. 9 of the Union Legislation has been substituted and a new Section being S. 17a has been inserted. While in S. 9 of the Parliamentary Act, power is given to the Licensing Officer or any person authorised by the Central Government in this behalf, to enter and inspect any rice mill, to order production of any book or other documents in possession or power of any person having the control of or employed in connection with any rice mill and also to examine any such person, S. 9 of the Act as substituted by the West Bengal Amendment Act of 1974 authorises a Licensing Officer and also any Police Officer not below the rank of a Sub-Inspector of Police, who has reasonable grounds for believing that there has been a contrav any of the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder, to search any place where any rice mill is located and also to seize and retain the rice mill including its machineries, parts and accessories, any stock of rice or paddy, as well as books, documents or other papers as aforesaid. And S. 17a as inserted by the West Bengal Amendment Act of 1974 has provided that "an offence punishable under this Act, or any Rule or Order made thereunder shall be cognisable and non-bailable". Under the Parliamentary Act, read with the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, such offences are bailable as well as non-cognizable.
( 3 ) THE case giving rise to the present prosecution was initiated and investigated by the police and was instituted on a police report on the strength of the provisions of S. 17a of the Act, as inserted and S. 9 of the Act, as substituted, by the West Bengal Amendment. And the only point that has been urged by Mr. Roy, the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner, is that the West Bengal Amendment Act of 1974 is void as in view of Entry 52 of the Union List and the requisite declaration in respect of rice mills in S. 2 of the Parliamentary Act of 1958, rice mills became exclusively a subject for Parliamentary legislation and the State could no longer legislate in or on any matter relating to rice mills. In other words, the contention is that the legislative field relating to rice mill has been so occupied by Entry No. 52 of the Union List and by the Parliamentary Act of 1958, that any State legislation touching or in any way relating to rice mills would he incompetent.
( 4 ) THE argument must and cannot but be repelled. Section 9, as substituted and S. 17a, as inserted, by the West Bengal Act manifestly deal with matters relating to Criminal Procedure, like investigation of offences and the like, matters which are evidently within the concurrent jurisdiction of the Union and the States, being Entry No. 2 of the Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution and, therefore, the West Bengal Legislature had and has full competence to make laws relating thereto. Even if the West Bengal Act consists of provisions relating to offences in respect of rice mills under the Parliamentary Legislation enacted in the exercise
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
