LexA. K. JAIN & ORS versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H A. K. JAIN & ORS. V. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. July 25, 1969 (S. M. S!KRI, G. K. MITTER AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.] Essential Conunodities Act, 1955, s. 3-Sugarcane (Control) Order 1955 Rule 3(3)-0ffence if purchaser does not pay price of sugarcane p"rcliased, within 14 days-Validity of rule-Whether s. 3 of Act deals H'ith food crops or only with foodstuffs-Competence of Parliament to pass s. 3-Eff.ect of Bihar Sugar Factories Control Act, 1947-Fundaw n1c111al right under Art. 19(1) of Constitution whether affected fry in1p11gned rule-Offence whether cognizable within meaning of s. 4( 1) (f J Code of Criminal Pro~edure. The appellants were the cffice bearers of a sugar concern. A com- plaint \Vith the police was registered against them under sub-rule 3 of Rule 3 of the Sugarcane (Control) Order. 1955 read with s. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 1955, on the ground that they had failed to pay to the sellers \vithin the time prescribed the price of the suga~rcane purchased by them. Objecting to the investig&tion of the alleged offence the appellants filed a writ petition under.Art. 226 of the Constitution but the High Court refused to interfere. By special Jeave they came to this Court The con- tentions urged on behalf of the appellants were (i) that sul1-rule 3 of rule 3 could not have been validly issued under s. 3 of the Essential Com- n1odities Act because -the 1atter section applied only to foodstuffs and not to food crops, (ii) that the regulation of the price of sugarcane being expressly dealt 'vith by the Bihar Sugar Factories Control Act, 1937 the s.3me power could not by implication be spelt out from the provisions of the Order and the Act, (jii) that Parliament had no competence to enact 2ny lav.1 relating to the .Control of sugarcane as that sub.iect v.'as within the exclusive legislative juFisdiction of the State, the same being a part of agriculture, (iv) th,at there was violatioo of the fundamental rieht under Art. 19(1) of the Constitution by the impugned order. (v) that in view of s. 11 of the Act no cognizance could have been taken of the offence. (\•i) that the complaint made before the police did not disclose a cognizable offence and as such the police was not empowered to invcsti2ate th~ con1plaint. HELD : (i) Jn view c)f the scheme of ss. 2 and 3 of the Act and the judgment of this Court in Ch. Tika .Raniji',f case the contention that food croos \vere outside . the purvk·w of s. 3 of the Act must be rejected. r675 B-GJ Ch. Tika Ramii & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. [1956] S.C.R. 4.12. applied. (ii) The power sought to be exercised in tl_lf" present case was not an implied one for .sub-rule (3) of rule 3 gives a sp~cific mandate that unless there is an agreement in· :writiog to the contrary between the parties the purchaser shall nay to the seller the price of the sugarcane purchased within 14 days. [676 G·H] 674 SUPREME COUAT REPORTS [1970] I s.c.R. A Even if the Bihar Sugar Factories Control, Act, 1937 provides anything to the contrary it must be held to have been altered by a competent autho- rity namely Parliament, under Art, 372 of the Constitution. [677 A-BJ (iii) Parliament was competent to enact the Essential Commodities Act and to confer power on the Government under s. 3 of the Act as Entry 33 of List Ill of the Constitution empowers Parliament to legislate in re$- pect of production, supply and distribution of foodstuffs. [677 C-DJ B (iv) There was no contravention of Art. 19(1) because no fundamental right is conferred on a buyer not to pay the price of the goods purchased .by him or to pay the same whenever he pleases. [677 EJ (v) The plea based on s, 11 of the Act was premature because no -court had yet taken rognizance of the case. [677 F] (vi) The offence complained of was punishable with three years' im- C prisonment and fell within the 2nd Schedule of the Code of Criminal Pro- ·cedure. It was therefore a cognizable offence as defined in s. 4(1)(0 of the Code. [677 GJ CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 189 of 1966. Appeaf by special leave from the judgment and order dated D July 4, 1966 of the Patna High Court in Crimi,nal W.J.C. No. 11 of 1966. B. R. L. Iyengar and U. P. Singh, for the appellants. V. A. Seyid Muhammad and S. P. Nayar, for respondent No. I. E The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hegde, J. This appeal against the decision of the High Court of P
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.