BHATNAGARS AND CO. LTD. versus THE UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [1957] 1 S.C.R. 701 · Decided: 21-02-1957 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHI RANJAN DAS · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
701 
in the proceedings under s. 145 
Criminal 
Procedure 
Code, because according to the evidence on the record 
the entries were 
made somewhere in March and this 
could not have helped 
Adit Pande, as the magistrate 
had already decided the 
proceedings 
under s. 
145 
Criminal Procedure 
Code in 
December 1950, and had 
ordered possession to be delivered to the complainant ; 
and, therefore, this entry could not affect the result of 
the proceeding under s. 145 
Criminal Procedure Code. 
Mr. Mathur founded his case also on s. 16 of the 
U.P. 
Zamindari 
Abolition and 
Land 
Reforms 
Act, 
(U.P. Act I of 1951), 
which· provided that a person, 
who was recorded as an occupant of the land for the 
year 1356 F and who, on 
the date mentioned in the 
section was in possession of the land, shall be deemed 
to be a hereditary tenant of 
the land. 
But the entry 
complained of is not for the year 1356 F but for the 
year 1358 F, and this entry would not have 
been of 
any avail to Adit Pande for the purposes of s. 16 of the 
Zamindari Abolition Act. 
In the circumstances of the 
case it cannot be said that an offence under s. 218 has 
been committed by the appellant a§ in our opinion the 
prosecution has failed to 
prove the necessary 
criminal 
intention. 
In these circumstances, we would allow the appeal, 
set aside the order of conviction and acquit the accused. 
As a consequence the bail bond shall stand cancelled. 
Appeal allowed. 
BHA TN AGARS AND CO. LTD. 
"· 
THE UNION OF INDIA 
(and connected petitions) 
S. R. DAs C.J., 
VENKATARAMA 
AYYAR, B. P. 
SrNHA, 
S. K. DAs and GAJENDRAGADKAR JJ.) 
Import and Export, 
Control of-Soda ash, if can be imported 
tuithout licence-Issue of licence, if amounts to delegated legislation-
Trafficking in licence-Confiscation of consignments and seizure of 
licence by Sea Cu;toms Authorities-Issue of Writs-Policy Statement 
1957 
R•zhub•nsh Lal 
v. 
Tiu Stat1 of U.P. 
Kapur]. 
1957 
F1lruary 21 
1957 
Bhatna1ars and Co. 
Ltd. 
v. 
Th• Union of India 
702 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1957] 
by GovernnJent, if. amounts to monopoly-.../mport and Export( Control) 
Act. 1947 (XVl/l of 1947), s. 3(J)(a)-Constitution of India, Art. 32. 
The petitioner obtained a. licence for importing soda 
ash 
during the free licencing period in 1952. 
On the basis of the 
licence certain consignments of soda ash were received in Bombay. 
The Customs Authorities had reason to suspect that the petitioner 
was trafficking in his licence and on investigation found that two 
of the consignments had actually been imported by another party 
and 
confiscated them. 
The petitioner appealed to the Central 
Board of Revenue and thereafter moved the Government of India, 
but to no effect. 
The Collector of Custo1ns ordered the goods -to 
be auctioned. 
Five petitions were filed in this court under Art. 32 
of the Gonstitution seeking for the issue of appropriate writs in 
respect of the confiscation of the goods and seizure of the licence. 
It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the In1ports and 
Exports 
(Control) Act, 1947 not having re-enacted 
the provision!! 
of r. 84(2) of the Defence of India Rules, s. 3(1)(a) of the Act had 
no application to soda ash and no licence \Vas required to import 
it; that, in the alternative, legislation authorising the issue of 
licences 
amounted to delegated legislation 
and 
was, therefore, 
invalid. 
It was further 
contended that the 
Policy 
Statement 
made by the Government in the Press Note dated 
February 3, 
1955, and Public Notice dated June 30, 1956, created a monopoly 
and infringed the petitioner's funda1nental 
right to carry on his 
trade and business and lastly, that the virtual invalidation of his 
licence having been improperly made should be set aside 
and the 
:;;an1e directed to be revalidated for the unexpired period. 
Held, that the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner 
must fail and the petitions n1ust be disn1issed. 
The language of s. 3(!)(a) of the 
Imports 
and 
Exports 
(Control) Act, !947, made it abundantly clear that it was intended 
to apply to the i1nport of all goods of specified description co\'ered 
by r. 84(2) of the Defence of India Rules including soda ash so as 
to 
render the re-c:naclJ11ent of that rule wholly 
unnecC'~sary. The 
provision 
of the section 
must be 
rea<l 
Jisjuncti\'ely 
and dis-
tributively and it 
was wholly unreasonable to suggest 
that the 
wor<ls 'i1nport' and 'expor

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