Back
1963 Supreme(All) 142
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
D. S. Mathur, J.
MAHESH CHANDRA GUPTA - Appellant
Versus
THE STATE - Respondents
Criminal Revn. 1631 Of 1962
Decided On : 09/11/1963
K.N.SRIVASTAV, S.N.MISRA
Headnote:
PRIZE COMPETITIONS ACT, 1955 - SECTIONS 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 - CONSTITUTIONALITY - REASONABLENESS OF RESTRICTIONS - PROHIBITION OF PRIZE COMPETITIONS - SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY - INTENTION TO CONDUCT PRIZE COMPETITION - SEARCH AND SEIZURE - POWERS OF POLICE OFFICERS - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 14.
Fact of the Case:
The applicants, Mahesh Chandra Gupta and Umesh Chandra Gupta, were convicted under Sections 9 and 11(c) of the Prize Competitions Act, 1955, for contravening the provisions of Section 4 of the Act. They challenged their conviction in revision, raising various grounds, including the unconstitutionality of the Act and the illegality of the search conducted by a C.I.D. Inspector.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the applicants were promoting and conducting prize competitions in which the total value of the prizes to be offered in any month exceeded Rs. 1,000/-, which was prohibited under Section 4 of the Act. The court also held that the search conducted by the C.I.D. Inspector was lawful as it was authorized under Section 14 of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the provisions of the Prize Competitions Act, 1955, are unconstitutional for violating Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the restriction imposed by Section 4 of the Act is reasonable and in the interest of the general public? 3. Whether the applicants' intention to conduct a prize competition can be inferred from the printing of competition leaflets and results? 4. Whether the applicants' promotion of prize competitions from Bulandshahr, meant for people living outside India, constitutes an offence under the Act? 5. Whether the search conducted by a C.I.D. Inspector, who was not a Special Police Officer appointed under Section 14 of the Act, was illegal?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the provisions of the Act are not unconstitutional as they do not violate Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. The restriction imposed by Section 4 of the Act is reasonable and in the interest of the general public as it aims to prevent gambling and protect people from financial losses. 2. The court inferred the applicants' intention to conduct a prize competition from the printing of competition leaflets and results, as there was no other plausible explanation for such printing. 3. The court held that the applicants' promotion of prize competitions from Bulandshahr, meant for people living outside India, constituted an offence under the Act as the prohibition under Section 4 applies to any prize competition conducted within the territory to which the Act extends. 4. The court held that the search conducted by the C.I.D. Inspector was lawful as Section 14 of the Act authorizes police officers, including C.I.D. Inspectors, to search premises suspected of being used for prize competitions.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the revision petition. The conviction and sentence of the applicants under Section 9 of the Act for contravention of Section 4 were maintained, but the conviction and sentence under Section 11 of the Act were set aside.
( 1 ) THIS is an application in revision by Mahesh Chandra Gupta and Umesh Chandra Gupta to challenge their conviction of an offence punishable under Sections 9 and 11 (c) of the Prize competitions Act, 1955 (to be referred hereinafter as the Act) for contravention of the provisions of Section 4 thereof. They have both been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 600/-, Rs. 500/- each under section 9 and Rs. 100/- each under Section 11 (c), in case of default, three months Rule 1.
( 2 ) THE Act was passed on October 22, 1955, but came into force on April 1, 1956. No notification pertaining to the appointment ot licensing authority was published till August 25, 1956; and no general or special order as contemplated by Section 14 of the Act was passed till then. The result was that even though the Act came into force on 1-4-1956, there was till 25-8-1956 no licensing authority to whom an application for the grant of licence under Section 6 could be made, nor was there any special police officer who could act under Section 14 of the act.
( 3 ) PRIZE competitions though promoted and conducted by the applicants from Bulandshahr within the State of Uttar Pradesh were meant to be availed of by persons living outside India. When one of the winners did not receive the prize money, he made a complaint to the Government of India and the matter was in due course entrusted to a C. I. D. Inspector for inquiry. On 5-8-1950 the C. I. D. Inspector moved the competent Magistrate for the grant of permission to investigate the crime. Permission was given the same day and the Inspector forthwith searched the house of the applicants when many articles relating to prize competitions were recovered from therein.
( 4 ) BOTH the lower court have recorded the finding that the applicants were promoting and conducting prize competitions in which the total value of the prizes to be offered in any month exceeded one thousand rupees. They also recorded the finding that the applicants were running the prize competitions from Bulandshahr, but the entries were submitted by persons living outside India within the Commonwealth. The Magistrate convicted the applicants under Sections 9 and 11 of the Act for contravention of Section 4 thereof, and sentenced them to a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each. The conviction was maintained in appeal but the Sessions Judge reduced the fine to rs. 500/- under Section 9 read with Section 4 of the Act and Rs. 100/- under Section 11 of the act. In case of non-payment of fine, they were to undergo three months Rule 1 each. The magistrate had in case of non-payment of fine, awarded a sentence of only twenty days Rule 1 each. The sentence in default as awarded by the Sessions Judge clearly amounts to enhancement of sentence and is manifestly without jurisdiction.
( 5 ) MOST of the grounds raised in the revision application pertain to the contravention of Section 5 of the Act and in view of the fact that there was contravention of Section 4 and not of Section 5, it is not necessary to make any comment on these grounds except in so far as it may be necessary for recording a finding whether the conviction is or is not proper.
( 6 ) THE first point urged before me is that the provisions of the Act are unconstitutional as they infringe the provisions of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. The provisions of the act are said to be hit by Article 14 on account of the legislature not laying down any policy in the Act for the guidance of the licensing authority and thereby giving him unrestricted and arbitrary power either to grant or to refuse to grant a licence under Section 6 of the Act. On this point I need not express any opinion. Even if it be assumed for the sake of argument that the delegation of power to grant or refuse to grant a licence is arbitrary and unconstitutional, Section 6 and other connected provisions can be declared invalid, and as such provisions are severable, they shall not affect the validity of Section 4 and
