BABULAL PARATE versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS.

Citation: [1961] 3 S.C.R. 423 · Decided: 12-01-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

I 
38.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
423 
portion of the income which was earned in British 
India and not in Bhor State. The answer to the 
second question is in the negative. The answer to the 
third question is in the affirmative. The question 
posed and answered by the High Court hardly arises, 
in view of the answer to the first question. That 
question and the answer to it are set aside as being not 
necessary. 
The appeals thus fail except for a slight modifica-
tion in the answer to the first question, and subject to 
that modification, are dismissed. The appellants 
must bear the costs of these appeals. There shall be 
one hearing fee. 
Appeals dismissed. 
BABULAL PARATE 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS. 
(B. P. SINHA, C.J., s. K. DAS, A. K. SARKAR, 
N. RAJAG-O~ALA AYYANGAR and J. R. MUDHOLXAR, JJ.) 
Criminal procedure-Apprehended danger-Power of Magistrate 
to issue order absolute at once-.Constitutionalily-Code of Criminal 
Procedure, I898 (V of I898), s. I44-Constitution of India, Art. I9 
(I)(a) and (b). 
· 
The District Magistrate, apprehending a breach of peace as a 
resulfof demonstrations and counter-demonstrations held by two 
rival labour unions, promulgated an order under s. 144 of the 
Code of Criminal Procedure, which Was to remain in force for a 
period of fifteen days, prohibiting, inter alia, the assembly of five 
or more persons in certain specified areas. The petitioner took 
it as an invasion on the fundamental rights of the citizens under 
Art. rg(r)(a) and (b) of the Constitution and held a meeting out-
side the specified areas and exhorted the workers to take out 
processions in the no.tified areas in defiance of the said order. He 
was thereupon prosecuted under ss. 143 and r88 read withs. rr7 
of the Indian Penal Code. He moved the High Court under s. 491 
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and having failed to get relief 
there, moved this Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution chal-
lenging the constitutional validity of s. 144 of the Code ·on the 
ground that it conferred wide and unguided powers on the 
District Magistrate and thus contravened Art. rg(r)(a) and (b) of 
•.he Constitution. 
Held, that the attack on the constitutional validity of s. 144 
of the Code of Criminal Procedure must fail. 
r96z 
M/s. Bhor 
Indus/ties Ltd. 
v. 
Commissioner 
of Income-tax, 
Bombay City I 
Hiday~tuUah ]. 
I96I 
January 1z. 
Babulol Parot• 
v. 
Stale of 
Maharashtra 
424 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1961] 
Read as a whole, the section clearly showed that it was 
intended to secure the public weal by preventing .disorders, 
obstructions and annoyances. The powers conferred by it were 
exercisable by responsible Magistrates who were to act judicially 
and the restraints permitted by it were of a temporary nature 
and could be imposed only in an emergency, 
The restrictions whkh thesecti6n authorises are not beyond. 
the limits prescribed by els. (2) and'(3) of Art. 19 of the Constitu-
tion. The prevention of such adivities as are contemplated by 
the section is undoubtedly in public interest and therefore no less 
in the interest of public order. 
Clauses (2) to (6) of Art. 19 of the Constitution do not require. 
a special enactment for the enforcement of the restrictions men-
tioned in them. 
· 
The impugned section must be construed as a whole and. 
although the first part of cl. (irdoes not expressly mention that 
the order of the Magistrate must be preceded by an enquiry, the 
second part clearly indicates that the Magistrate has to satisfy 
himself either by his own enquiry or from a report made to him 
as to what the facts are. The section does not, therefore, confer 
an arbitrary power on the Magistrate in the matter of making the 
order. 
The wide power under the section can be exercised only in 
an emergency and for the purpose of preventing obstruction, 
annoyance or injury etc. as specified therein and those are the 
factors that must necessarily condition the exercise of the power 
and, therefore, it was not correct to say that the power is unlimited 
or untrammelled. Since the judgment has to be of a Magistrate, it 
can be assumed that the power will be exercised legitimately and 
honestly. The section cannot be struck down simply on the 
ground that tlie Magistrate might possibly abuse -his power. 
Although the section makes the Magistrate the initial Judge 
of an emergency that cannot make the restrictions placed by it 
unreasonable. Since maintenance of law and order rests with th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.