BHIM SEN FOR R. S. MALIK MATHRA DAS versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [1952] 1 S.C.R. 18 · Decided: 04-10-1951 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HARILAL JEKISUNDAS KANIA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

1951 
Commi'ssWner of 
Income Tax, 
Bombay 
v. 
Finlay Mills 
Ltd. 
Kania.C. /. 
1951 
Oct. 4 
18 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1952] 
expenditure. It was first held by him that the pay-
ment in question was of a capital nature and of the 
same character as premium paid on the grant of a, lease 
and was therefore 
necessarily of a capital 
nature. 
Having come to that conclusion, he only rejected the 
contention that because the premium was paid in more 
instalments than one it lost its character of a capital 
expenditure. In our opinion, this is an entirely dif-
ferent thing from stating that the 'fact of the advant-
age being for a limited time altered the character of 
the payment in any way. 
As observed by Viscount 
Cave L. C. the question is always one of fact depend-
ing on the circumstances of e~h case 'individually . 
• 
In our opinion, the decision of 
the High Court re-
ported in Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay v. The 
Century 
Spinning and Weaving and Manufacturing 
Co. Ltd.(') is correct and in the present case also the 
contention of the appellant 
must fail. 
The appeal 
therefore fails and is dismissed with costs. 
Appeal dismissed. 
Agent for the appellant : P. A. Mehta. 
Agent for the respondent : R. A. Govind. 
(1) [1947] 15 I.T.R. 105. 
BHIM SEN for R. S. MALIK MATHRA DAS 
v. 
THE STATE OF PUNJAB 
UNION OF INDIA-Intervener. 
PREM NATH for CH. HARBANS LAL 
fl. 
THE STATE OF PUNJAB 
BHIM SEN for RA TT AN CHAND 
fl. 
THE STATE OF PUNJAB 
.. 
 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
CH. HANS RAJ for KANWAR KISHORE 
ti. 
THE STATE OF PUNJAB 
ATMA SINGH for SHANTI SAROOP 
ti. 
THE STATE OF PUNJAB 
[HARILAL KANIA c. J., MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN 
AND CHANDRASEKHAAA AIYAR JJ.J 
19 
Preventive Detention Act (IV of 1950), s. 3(1)-Preveniive deten-
tion for black-marketing-Order based on past activities-Validity 
-Power of Court to consider sufficiency of grounds-Effect of estab-
lishment of Advisory Boards under Preventive Detention (Amending) 
/let, 1951. 
An order of detention 
to prevent black-marketing cannot be 
held to be illegal merely because in the grounds for such deten· 
tion the detaining authority has referred only to the past activi-
ties of the person 
detained, inasmuch as 
instances of past activi-
ties may give rise to a subjective mental conviction that it is 
necessary to detain such person to prevent him from indulging in 
black-marketing in the future. 
Under the . Preventive Detention Act, 
1950, the test as to 
whether an order of detention should be made is the subjective 
•atisfaction of the detaining authority; the Court has no power 
to consider whether the grounds supplied by the authority are 
rufficient to give rise to such satisfaction. The establishment of 
the Advisory Board by the Amending Act of 1951 has not made 
the matter a justiciable one, and even after the Amending Act 
the Court has no power to c<lnsider whether the grounds supplied 
are sufficient for making an order of detention. 
CRIMINAL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION : 
Criminal 
Appeals Nos. 45 to 49 of 1951. 
Appeals from the judgments and orders dated 20th 
August, 1951, of the High Court of Judicature at 
Simla 
(Bhandari and Soni JJ.) 
in Criminal Writ 
Cases Nos. 46 to 50 of 1951. 
Jai Gopal Sethi (R. L. Kohli and Sri Ramkumar, 
with him) for the appellants in Cr. Appeals Nos.- 45 
and 49. 
1951 
Bhim Sen 
v. 
! he State of 
Punjab. 
..
1951 
Rhim Sen 
v. 
The State of 
Punjab. 
Kania C. /. 
20 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1952] 
N. C. Chatterjee (Hardayal Hardy and R. L. Kohli, 
with him) for the appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 46. 
Hardyal Hardy for the appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 48. 
S. M. Sikri, Advocate-General of the Punjab (N. S. 
Doabia, with him) for the respondent in all the appeals. 
M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India ( G. N. 
Joshi, with him) for the Intervener in Cr. Appeal 
No. 45. 
1951. October 4. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
KANIA C. }.-These are five companion appeals from 
the judgments of the High Court of East Punjab and 
the principal point argued before us is as to the lega-
lity of the detention of the appellants under the 
Preventive Detention Act on the ground that they are 
4
engaged in black-marketing in cotton piecegoods. 
~
The Jullundur Wholesale Cloth Syndicate was form-
ed to work out the distribution of cloth under the 
Government of Punjab Control (Cloth) Order passed 
under 
the 
Essential 
Supplies Act. 
Certain persons 
who held licences as wholesale dealers in cloth forme
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.