1951 JTR(SC) 56
1951 AIR(SC) 484
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.H. Kania, CJI., M. Patanjali Sastri, B.K. Mukherjea, S.R. Das, N. Chandrasekhara Aiyar, JJ.
Joylal Agarwala – Appellant
Versus
The State – Respondent
Union of India - Intervaner
Criminal Appeals Nos. 7 of 1950 and 25 of 1951
Decided On : 04-10-1951
An Act extended to an excluded area by a Governor's notification remains in force as long as the Act itself is operative. Extensions of the Act's duration through prescribed legislative resolutions are valid and do not constitute an illegal delegation of legislative power.
Act
Referred
:ESSENTIAL SUPPLIES TEMPORARY POWERS ACT
: S.1(3)
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT: S.92(1)
INDEPENDENCE ACT: S.19(4), S.9
INDIAN CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND LEGISLATURE ACT: S.4(a), S.4
(A) Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946 - Sections 7 and 8 - Government of India Act, 1935 - Section 92(1) - India (Central Government and Legislature) Act, 1946 - Section 4 - Indian Independence Act, 1947 - Sections 9 and 19(4) - Extension of Act to excluded area - Validity of extension of life of the Act - Where a Governor extends an Act to an excluded area without specifying a particular period for its applicability, the Act remains in force in that area as long as it remains in force in the rest of the country (Para 6) - Resolutions passed by the legislative body to extend the life of an Act, where the mechanism for such extension is provided within the Act itself, are valid and do not constitute an impermissible delegation of legislative power (Paras 7, 8).
(B) Criminal Law - Mens rea - Inference of criminal intent - False statements made by the accused regarding the nature of goods being transported and the failure to produce required permits warrant the inference of criminal intent (Para 11).
Facts of the case:
Two appeals were filed against convictions under the Essential Supplies Act. In the first instance, a salesman was convicted for selling textile cloth above the controlled price in an excluded area. The appellant contended that the Act was not in force in that area because the initial period of the Act had expired and a fresh notification by the Governor was required after the Act's life was extended. In the second instance, an individual was convicted for loading cloth without a permit, challenging the validity of the Act's extension and the existence of mens rea.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Governor's notification extending the Act to the excluded area remained valid as long as the Act itself remained in force. The extensions of the Act's duration by the legislative body were legally sound as they followed the procedure established by the Act. In the second case, the accused's conduct, specifically providing false information about the goods and lacking a permit, was sufficient to infer mens rea.
Issues: Whether a fresh notification by the Governor was necessary to continue the operation of the Act in an excluded area after the general life of the Act was extended; whether resolutions by the legislative body could validly extend the life of the Act; and whether mens rea could be inferred from the conduct of the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: An Act extended to an excluded area by a Governor's notification without a specified duration continues to operate as long as the Act remains in force generally. Extensions of the Act's duration via a mechanism prescribed within the Act itself do not amount to a delegation of legislative power. Mens rea can be inferred from circumstantial evidence, such as misleading statements and the absence of mandatory permits.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
(B) Criminal Law - Mens rea - Inference of criminal intent - False statements made by the accused regarding the nature of goods being transported and the failure to produce required permits warrant the inference of criminal intent (Para 11).
Facts of the case:
Two appeals were filed against convictions under the Essential Supplies Act. In the first instance, a salesman was convicted for selling textile cloth above the controlled price in an excluded area. The appellant contended that the Act was not in force in that area because the initial period of the Act had expired and a fresh notification by the Governor was required after the Act's life was extended. In the second instance, an individual was convicted for loading cloth without a permit, challenging the validity of the Act's extension and the existence of mens rea.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Governor's notification extending the Act to the excluded area remained valid as long as the Act itself remained in force. The extensions of the Act's duration by the legislative body were legally sound as they followed the procedure established by the Act. In the second case, the accused's conduct, specifically providing false information about the goods and lacking a permit, was sufficient to infer mens rea.
Issues: Whether a fresh notification by the Governor was necessary to continue the operation of the Act in an excluded area after the general life of the Act was extended; whether resolutions by the legislative body could validly extend the life of the Act; and whether mens rea could be inferred from the conduct of the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: An Act extended to an excluded area by a Governor's notification without a specified duration continues to operate as long as the Act remains in force generally. Extensions of the Act's duration via a mechanism prescribed within the Act itself do not amount to a delegation of legislative power. Mens rea can be inferred from circumstantial evidence, such as misleading statements and the absence of mandatory permits.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
Delegation - The court held that this case was not applicable because the legislature had fixed the duration of the Act, and there was no issue of delegation of legislative power.
Shri Ajit Kumar Datta and Shri S. N. Mukherjea, Advocates, instructed by Shri R. R. Biswas Agent for Appellant (in both the Appeals); Shri B. Sen Advocate, instructed by Shri P. K. Bose, Agent - for the State (in both the Appeals); Shri G. N. Joshi Advocate, instructed by Shri P. A. Mehta, Agent for the Intervener (in Cri. Appeal No 7).
Judgment
Chandrasekhara Aiyar J. - These two criminal appeals are from convictions of the appellants by the High Court at Calcutta. In the first case. leave to appeal to this Court was granted by the High Court under Art. 134 (1) (e) of the Constitution of India. In the second case, special leave to appeal was granted by this Court under Art. 136 (1) of the Constitution. The appeals heard together, but as they are by different parties and the facts are different, it is desirable to have two separate judgments. Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 1950
2. The appellant, Joylal Agarwala, who was a salesman in a retail shop in Pulbazar in the district of Darjeeling in the State of West Bengal, was charged with having sold a piece of textile cloth at a price in excess of the controlled price. For this contravention of the provisions of Cl. 24 (1) of the Cotton Textiles Control Order, 1948, he was convicted by the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Darjeeling under S. 7, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers that (Act XXIV [24] of 1946) (hereinafter referred as the Essential Supplies Act), and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment. On appeal to the Sessions Judge, the appellant Was acquired on two grounds, viz., (1) that no sanction was previously obtained for the prosecution as required by Cl. 96 of the Cotton Textiles Control Order, and (2) that the Essential Supplies Act was not in force in the district of Darjeeling on the date of the occurrence. On appeal to the High Court the State of West Bengal, the point about the absence of sanction under Cl. 36 of the Control Order was given up by the present appellant, as its necessity had been abolished by a later Notification of the Central Government. On the second point, the learned Judges of the High Court held that the Act was validly extended to the district of Darjeeling and was in force in that area on the date of the occurrence, viz., 14-10-1949. The acquittal of the appellant was set aside, the order of conviction passed by the Magistrate was restored, and the appellant was sentenced to four months rigorous imprisonment.
3. To understand the main legal argument as to whether the Essential Supplies Act of 1946 was in force at the time of the alleged commission of the offence, it is necessary to set out the relevant provisions of a few Acts and Orders and their dates. The Essential Supplies Act came into force on 19-11-1946. Section 92 (1 ) of the Government of India Act. 1935 provided is follows : ".... No Act of the Federal Legislature or of the Provincial Legislature, shall apply to an excluded area or a partially excluded area, unless the Governor by public notification so directs, and the Governor in giving such a direction with respect to any Act may direct that the Act shall in its application to the area . . . . have effect subject to such exceptions or modifications as he thinks fit." In exercise of the powers conferred on him by this section, the Governor of Bengal by a notification published on 14-12-1946 directed that the Essential Supplies Act shall apply to the district of Darjeelingee which was an excluded area.
4. Section 1(3), Essential Supplies Act provides that it shall cease to have effect in the expiration of the period mentioned in S. 4 of the India (Central Government and Legislature) Act, 1946 (9 and 10 Geo. 6, ch. 39). Section 4 of the latter Act provides as follows : . . .... .the period mentioned . . . is the period of one year beginning with the date on which the Proclamation of Emergency in force at the passing of this Act ceases to operate or, if the Governor General by public notification 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." The Proclamation of Emergency referred to in this section ceased to operate on 31-3-1946. In the absence of a notification by the Governor-General under the second part of the section, the Essential Supplies Act remained operative only till 31-3-1947, under the first part. The Governor General, however, issued a notification on 3-3-1947 continuing its force for a period of 2 years from the date of cessation of Emergency. By virtue of this notification, therefore, the Essential Supplies Act would remain in force till 31-3-1948. On 18-7-1947, the Indian INDEPENDENCE ACT was passed, and India became a Dominion on 15- 8-1947. Under S. 9 read with S. 19 (4), INDEPENDENCE ACT , 1947, the Governor-General passed an order on 14-8-1947, which substituted the words "Dominion Legislature" for " both Houses of Parliament in the proviso to S. 4 of the India (Central Government and Legislature) Act, 1946, and also introduced a new S. 4A by way of adaptation, providing that the powers of the Dominion Legislature shall be exercised by the Constituent Assembly. On 25-2-1948, the Constituent Assembly passed its first resolution extending the operation of the Essential Supplies Act by one year upto 31-3 -1949. On 23- 9-1949, a second resolution was passed by the Assembly extending the life of the Act by one more year upto 31-3-1950.
5. In respect of these Acts and notifications, three questions were urged on behalf of the appellant : firstly whether the Governor s notification of 14 -12-1946 continued the operation of the Essential Supplies Act in the district of Darjeeling beyond the then period of life of the Act namely, the period of one year from the date of cessation of emergency : secondly, whether a fresh notification by the Governor under S. 92 (1), Government of India Act was not necessary, after the life of the Essential Supplies Act was Extended by the Governor-General s notification of 3-3-1947; and thirdly, whether the resolutions passed by the Constituent Assembly could operate to extend the life of the Essential Supplies Act.
6. Now, it is clear that under S. 1 (3), Essential Supplies Act it shall cease to have effect on the expiration of the period mentioned in S. 4, India (Central Government and Legislature) Act, 1946 The period mentioned in that section is not necessarily one year from the date of cessation of emergency. It can be 2 years if the Governor-General by notification so directs, and it may go up to a maximum period of 5 years in instalments of 1 year each under the proviso. The fixation of the period of operation of the Essential Supplies Act is thus not left to any other enactment. It is provided by the Act itself. As stated already, the notification of 14-12-1946, issued by the Governor applied the Essential Supplies Act to the Darjeeling district, and its life was extended upto 31-3-1948 by the notification of the Governor General. It is difficult to see why a fresh notification under S. 92 (i), Government of India Act is required to continue the life of the Act in the district of Darjeeling. The Governor s notification extended the Act to Darjeeling without specifying any particular period for its applicability to that district, and it follows therefore that the Act would remain in force in the district so long as it remained in force in the rest of India. It is only if its effect had ceased earlier than the coming into force of the Indian INDEPENDENCE ACT and there was a reenactment by the legislature which was sought to be applied to an excluded area, that a notification by the Governor under S. 92 (1), Government of India Act might be necessary. Otherwise, the question of a fresh notification does not arise.
7. Section 19 (4), Indian INDEPENDENCE ACT , 1947 provides as follows : "In this Act, except so far as the context otherwise requires References to the Government of India Act, 1935, include references to any enactments amending or supplementing that Act, and in particular, references to the India. (Central Government and Legislature). Act, 1946. . . . . .." . The adaptations made by the Governor-General under Ss. 9 and 19. Indian INDEPENDENCE ACT substituted the words "Constituent Assembly" for "both Houses of Parliament" in S. 4, India (Central Government and Legislature) Act. and the Constituent Assembly by two resolutions of different dates has extended the life of the Essential Supplies Act till 31-3-1950. As soon as the adaptations came into force by order of the Governor-General, the Constituent Assembly acquired the powers conferred on both Houses of Parliament under S. 4, India (Central Government and Legislature) Act. The validity of the adaptations is beyond question.
8. The case of Jatindra Nath Gupta v. The Province of Bihar , 1949 F. C. F.. 595 has no application here. In the case now before us the legislature has itself applied its mind and has fixed the duration of the Act, but has left the machinery to reach the maximum period by instlaments to be worked out in a particular manner. There is here no question of delegation at all, much less delegation of any legislative power.
9. The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed. Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 1951.
10. In this case, the appellant, Bichan Chand Molla was charged with loading 28 bags of millmade cloth from a truck into a specially chartered aircraft at the Dum Dum airport, on behalf of his employers, Messrs. Amarchand Pannalal, without a permit, as required under clauses 4 (2) of the West Bengal Cotton Cloth and Yarn Movement Control Order, 1947. He was convicted under S. 7 (1) read with S. 8, Essential Supplies Act and sentenced to 9 month s R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1000 by the 1st class Magistrate of Barrackpore. The Sessions Judge of 24 Parganas dismissed the appeal preferred by the accused. A revision application filed by him in the High Court shared the name fate.
11. The legal argument urged in this appeal was the same as in the earlier appeal, and has to be repelled as untenable for the reasons already stated. A special point was sought to be argued that the element of mens rea was wanting. But the question was considered by the High Court and it was held that there are two facts from which mens rea could be inferred. When questioned, the accused stated that be was loading handloom bales and not millmede cloth. He had no permit with him and was not able to produce any even from his employers. These facts under the circumstances warrant the inference of a criminal intent.
12. This appeal also will therefore stand dismissed.
Appeals dismissed.
For Citation : AIR 1951 SC 484