A. S. KRISHNA versus STATE OF MADRAS.

Citation: [1957] 1 S.C.R. 399 · Decided: 28-11-1956 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHI RANJAN DAS · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

S.C.R.. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
399 
A. S. KRISHNA 
t!. 
STATE OF MADRAS. 
(with connected appeals) 
(S. 
R. 
DAS 
C.J., 
BHAGWATI, 
VENKATARAMA 
AYYAR, 
B. P. SINHA and S. K. DAs, JJ.) 
Madras Prohibition Act, 1937 (Mad. X of 1937), ss. 4(1), 4(2), 
28, 29, 30, 31, 32-Constitutional validity-Legislative competency-
Pith and substance of the legislation-The Government of India Act, 
1935 (26 Geo. 5 & 1 Edw. 8 Ch. 2), s. 107(1), Sch. 7 List II, Entry 
31-Constitution of India, Art. 14. 
The appellants were charged before the Presidency Magistrate 
for offences under the Madras Prohibition Act, 1937 and when the 
cases were taken up for trial they raised the contentions that ss. 
4(2) and 28 to 32 of the Act are void under s. 107(1) of the 
Government of India Act, 1935, because they 
are 
repugnant to 
the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the Code of 
Criminal Procedure, 1898, and also because they are repugnant to 
Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. 
On their application, the 
Magistrate referred the questions for the opinion of the High 
Court under s. 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High 
Court having answered the questions against the appellants 
they 
preferred the present appeal under Art. 136. 
Held, that the Madras Prohibition Act, 1937, is both in form 
and in substance a law relating to intoxicating liquors 
and 
that 
the presumptions in s. 4(2) and the provisions relating to search, 
seizure and arrest in ss. 28 to 32 of the Act have no operation 
apart from offences created by the Act and are wholly ancillary to 
the exercise of the legislative power under Entry 31 in List II, 
Sch. 7 of the Government of India Act, 1935. Accordingly the Act 
is in its entirety a law within the exclusive competence of the Pro-
vincial Legislature and the question of repugnancy under s. 107(1) 
of the Government of India Act, 1935, does not arise. 
When a law is impugned on the ground that it is ultra vires 
the powers of the legislature which enacted it, what has to be 
ascertained is the true character of the 
legislation. 
To 
do that, 
one must hav~ regard to the enactment as a whole, to its objects 
and to the scope and effect of its provisions. If on such e)famina-
tion it is found that the legislation is in substance one on a matter 
assigned to the legislature, then it must be held to be valid in its 
entirety, even though it might incidentally trench on matters 
which are beyond its competence. It would be quite an erroneous 
approach to the question to view such a statute not as an organic 
whole, but as a mere collection of sections, then disintegrate it 
into parts, examine under what heads of legislation those parts 
1956 
November, 28. 
1956 
A. S. Krishna 
v. 
State of Madras 
400 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1957] 
would severally fall, and by that process determine \vhat portions 
thereof are intra vires, and what are not. 
Subrahrnanyan 
Chettiar v. · Muthustvanzi 
Goundan, 
(1940) 
F.C.R. 188, Prafulla Kumar Mukherjee v. The Bank of Commerce 
Ltd. (1940) L. R. 74 I.A. 23 and Lakhi Narayan Das v. The Province 
of Bihm· (1949) F.C.R. 693, relied on, 
Held fm·ther, that the presumptions in s. 4(2) of the Act do 
not offend the requirements as to equality before law or the equal 
protection of laws under Art. 14, as they have to be raised against 
all persons against who1n 
the facts 
tnentioncd therein are 
estab~ 
lishe<l. 
Even assun1ing that the law in An1crica that a 
presu1np~ 
tion of guilt would offend the requirement of the equal protection 
of 
la\\'S 
unless 
there is a 
rational 
connection bet\veen the act 
proved and the ultimate fact presumed, could have application to 
the Indian Constitution, on a proper reading of the sections there 
is a reasonable relation 
bet\.vcen 
the presumption 
raised in s. 4(2) 
and the offences under s. 4( 1 ). 
T-Villiam N. McFarland v. Atnerican Sugar Refining 
Con1pa11y, 
241 U.S. 79 ; 60 L. Ed. 899, Aibel'f /. Adams v. People of the State 
of New York, 192 U.S. 585; 48 L. Ed. 575. and Robert Hawes v. 
State of Georgia, 258 U.S. 1; 66 L. Ed. 431, referred to. 
CRIMINAL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION : 
Criminal 
Appeals Nos. 20 to 23 of 1955. 
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and 
order dated May 7, 1954, of the Madras High Court 
in Criminal Revision Cases Nos. 57 to 60 of 1954 and 
Case Referred Nos. 2 to 5 of 1954. 
N. C. Chatterji, S. Venkatakrislznan 
and S. Subra-
manian, for the appellants. 
V. K. T. Chari, Advocate-General
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.