Back
1946 Supreme(Nagpur) 16
HIGH COURT OF NAGPUR
PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT – Appellant
Versus
HABIB MOHAMMAD – Respondent
Decided on : 28-02-1946
The Court has the power to modify the language of a statute to give effect to its intention.
Headnote:
Criminal P.C. - Appeal - Cotton Cloth and Yarn (Control) Order 1943 - Rule 81(4), Defence of India Rules - Notification interpretation - District Magistrates' authorization - Contravention prosecution - Inartistic expression - Court's power to modify language of statute
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a cloth merchant, was charged with selling cloth at a rate exceeding the control price. The lower appellate Court acquitted him based on the invalidity of the District Magistrate's sanction for prosecution.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the inartistic expression in the notification did not invalidate it, and authorized District Magistrates to sanction prosecutions for contravention of the Cotton Cloth and Yarn (Control) Order, 1943, punishable under Rule 81(4), Defence of India Rules.
Issues: Validity of District Magistrate's sanction, interpretation of notification, prosecution case evaluation
Ratio Decidendi: The Court has the power to modify the language of a statute to give effect to its intention, and in this case, the notification was intended to authorize District Magistrates to sanction prosecutions for contravention of the Cotton Cloth and Yarn (Control) Order, 1943.
Final Decision: The Court set aside the acquittal, found the accused guilty, and upheld the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 6 months.
1. This is the Provincial Government's appeal under Section 417, Criminal P.C. from the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge, Jubbulpore, in Cr. A. No. 125 of 1945, on 31-7-1945.
2. The respondent, Haji Habib, is a cloth merchant at Andherdeo, Jubbulpore. The charge against him was that he on 16-2-1945 sold to Maksud Ali 20 yards of long cloth for Rs. 30 at the rate of Rs. 1/8/-per yard exceeding the control rate of-/13/10 per yard and that thereby contravened the provision of Clause 12(1), Cotton Cloth and Yarn (Control) Order. 1943, and committed an offence under Rule 81(4), Defence of India Rules. He was found guilty and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 6 months by the Magistrate First Class, Jubbulpore. But on appeal the Sessions Judge, Jubbulpore, acquitted him.
3. On 16-2-1945 at about noon Chhotelal, Head Constable Police, marked 3 currency notes of Rs. 10 and handed them over to Maksud Ali asking him to go to the shop of the respondent in the company of Mustafa for purchasing long cloth. Maksud Ali purchased 20 yards of long cloth at the rate of Rs. 1/8/-per yard. As soon as the transaction was over, Chhotelal raided the shop and seized the piece of 20 yards of long cloth, and 3 marked notes of Rs. 10, from the respondents. The prosecution was launched under the sanction of the District Magistrate, Jubbulpore.
4. The respondent in defence admitted that he received three currency notes from Maksud Ali and that the control price of the cloth was-/13/10 per yard. He also admitted the sale of 20 yards of cloth to Maksud Ali but denied that he had sold it to him at the rate of Rs. 1/8/-per yard and, pleaded that he had received the amount of Rs. 30 not merely as the price of 20 yards of cloth but as an advance for the supply of 20 yards of cloth more. Thus according to him, Maksud Ali agreed to purchase 40 yards of cloth out of which 20 yards of cloth were to be delivered later. The lower appellate Court accepted the defence and further held that the sanction given by the District Magistrate was invalid for the reason that the Provincial Government's notification authorising him to sanction prosecution contemplated by Clause 23, Cotton Cloth and Yarn (Control) Order, 1943, was defective.
5. We will first deal with the point relating to the notification which has been held by the lower appellate Court as being inoperative. That notification is No. 9418-9218-VII-P.C., dated 9-12-1944, which was published in the C.P. and Berar Gazette, 15-12 1944. It reads as follows:
In pursuance of Clause 23, Cotton Cloth and Yarn (Control) Order 1943 the Provincial Government is pleased to authorise all District Magistrates in the Central Provinces and Berar within their respective jurisdiction to sanction prosecutions for an offence punishable under the said Order.
6. Clause 23, Cotton Cloth and Yarn (Control) Order, 1943, runs as follows:
No prosecution for the contravention of any of the provisions of this Order shall be instituted without the previous sanction of the Provincial Government or of such officer of the Provincial Government not below the rank of District Magistrate as the Provincial Government may by general or special order in writing: authorise in this behalf.
7. The learned Sessions Judge was right in so far that the words ''for an offence punishable under the said Order'' used at the end of the notification were meaningless for the reason that the Cotton Cloth and Yarn (Control) Order, 1943, does not provide for the punishment of the contravention of any of the provisions of that Order. The contravention of any of the provisions of that Order is punishable under Rule 81(4), Defence of India Rules. The proper wording in the notification should have been 'for the contravention of any of the provisions of this Order punishable under Rule 81(4), Defence of India Rules'.
8. But the question is whether the inartistic expression which occurs in the Provincial Government's notification renders the whole notificat
