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

1957 Supreme(MP) 113

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
Nevaskar and Samvatsar, JJ.
HAJI USMAN HAJI MOHAMMAD - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondents
Criminal Revn. 16 Of 1956
Decided On : 05/31/1957

Advocates Appeared:
Malgava, Patel

Existing laws that are in conflict with Article 301 of the Constitution are saved by Article 305.

Headnote:

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - ARTICLE 19 (1) (G) - ARTICLE 301 - AYAT NIRYAAT KAR VIDHAN, SAMVAT 2006 - VALIDITY OF NOTIFICATION PROHIBITING EXPORT OF OIL - REASONABLENESS OF RESTRICTION - SAVING OF EXISTING LAWS UNDER ARTICLE 305.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner was convicted of an offence under Section 46 (a) of the Ayat Niryat Kar Vidhan, Samvat 2006 read with Madhya Bharat Government Notification No. 7 dated 14th August, 1948 for exporting groundnut seed oil from Madhya Bharat to Bhopal State. The petitioner challenged the validity of the notification on the grounds that it violated his fundamental right to carry on business under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution and that it contravened Article 301 of the Constitution.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the impugned notification was valid and did not violate the petitioner's fundamental rights under Article 19 (1) (g) or Article 301 of the Constitution. The Court found that the notification was issued under the provisions of the Ayat Niryat Kar Vidhan, Samvat 2006, which was an existing law within the meaning of Article 366 of the Constitution and was therefore saved by Article 305, notwithstanding that it was in conflict with Article 301 of the Constitution.

Issues: 1. Whether the impugned notification violated the petitioner's fundamental right to carry on business under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution? 2. Whether the impugned notification contravened Article 301 of the Constitution?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution deals with the rights of individual citizens to practise any profession, trade or business, whereas Article 301 and the other provisions of Part XIII are enacted for the purpose of regulating trade, commerce and intercourse generally. 2. The impugned notification was issued under the provisions of the Ayat Niryat Kar Vidhan, Samvat 2006, which was an existing law within the meaning of Article 366 of the Constitution and was therefore saved by Article 305, notwithstanding that it was in conflict with Article 301 of the Constitution.

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed.

SAMVATSAR, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision application is filed by accused Haji Usman who has been convicted of an offence under Section 46 (a) of the Ayat Niryat Kar Vidhan, Samvat 2006 read with Madhya Bharat Government Notification No. 7 dated 14th August, 1948 and sentenced to suffer imprisonment till rising of the Court and to pay a fine of rs. 500/ -. The facts giving rise to this petition are briefly stated as follows :

( 2 ) ON 2-11-1950 the petitioner despatched from his shop at Dewas 309 tins of groundnut seed oil for being exported to the then Bhopal State. The truck in which these tins were being carried was checked a little ahead of Daulatpur Custom Post in the territory of Madhya Bharat and as export of this oil from Madhya Bharat was then prohibited, the tins were seized and the accused-petitioner was prosecuted before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate First Class, Sonkatch.

( 3 ) THE accused denied having committed any offence but the learned Magistrate found Mm guilty and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment and to pay fine as stated above. Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence the accused preferred an appeal which was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dewas. He has now preferred this revision application to the High Court.

( 4 ) THE main contention raised by Mr. Malgawa, learned counsel lor the petitioner is that the Notification No. 7 dated 14th August, 1948 constituted an invasion on the right conferred on a citizen by Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution and was therefore void and inoperative with effect from January 26, 1950. He also contended that the said notification contravened Article 301 of the Constitution and was bad and ineffective on that ground also.

( 5 ) THE revision application was initially heard by Newaskar J. and was referred by him to a Division Bench, as it involved substantial questions as to the interpretation of the Constitution. The revision application was therefore heard by this Bench.

( 6 ) TWO questions arise for consideration on the contentions put forwaid by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Those are :

(i) whether Notification No. 7 dated 14th August, 1948 which was issued under Section 9 of the Customs Regulation Ordinance No. 8 of 1948, continued to be in force upto the date of the offence i. e. upto 2nd november, 1950; and

(ii) whether the provisions of this notification and the law under which it was issued is in conflict with Article 19 (1) (g) or Article 301 oi the constitution and has become void with effect from 26th January, 1950. I shall deal with both these points in the order in which they are set out.

( 7 ) IT is a matter of common knowledge that the State of Madhya Bharat was formed of 22 Covenanting States. All these States had their own customs laws. On the formation of Madhya Bharat all the laws including laws relating to customs and excise were kept alive by Ordinance No. 1 of 1948. On 14th August, 1948 the customs laws in force in different covenanting States were repealed and were replaced by Ordinance No. 8 of 1948 which is known as the United States of gwalior. Indore and Malwa (Madhya Bharat) Customs Regulation Ordinance samvat 2005. By Section 9 of this ordinance powers were conferred on the Government to exempt any commodity from import or export duty, to levy import or export duty on any commodity on which no import or export duty had been levied, to increase or to decrease the import or export duty already levied, to prohibit import and export of any commodity and to promulgate rules or regulations for the due compliance of the provisions of the ordinance.

( 8 ) IN exercise of the powers conferred by this section the State Government issued notification No. 7 dated 14th August. 1948 and thereby banned the export of certain commodities which amongst other things included oil seed and groundnut seed oil.

( 9 ) THE Ordinance No. 8 was repealed by Act No. 16 (Customs Regulation Act samvat 2005 ). The provisions of this Act were similar to those of O











































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