CHATURBHAI M. PATEL versus THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Citation: [1960] 2 S.C.R. 362 · Decided: 02-12-1959 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SYED JAFFER IMAM · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

362 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960 (2)] 
'959 
In those circumstances, the trial under s. 339 was held 
The State 
to be bad. We are not concerned in the present case 
v. 
with s. 339. What we have to decide is whether a 
Hiralal G. Kothari pardon under s. 337(1) of the Code of Criminal Pro-
and Others 
cedure can be granted in the case of an offence undflr 
s. 5 of the Official Secrets Act read with s. 120-B 0f 
Wanchoo J. 
the Indian Penal Code. To that there can bo only 
one answer on the terms of s. 337(1), namely, that no 
pardon can be granted for an offence of this nature. 
Therefore, as the present proceedings before the 
magistrate are only for an offence under s. 5 of the 
Official Secrets Act re»d with s. 120-B of the Indian 
Penal Code, Mehra cannot be examined as an approver 
in that court. There is no force in these appeals and 
they are hereby dismissed. 
'959 
December 2 
Appeals dismissed. 
CHATURBHAIM.PATEL 
v. 
THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 
(JAFER IMAM, S. K. DAS, J. L. KAPUR, A. K. SARKAR, 
and l\'[. HIDAYATULLAH, JJ.) 
Legislative Competence-Validity of enactment-Competence of 
Central Legislature-Levy of excise duty on tobacco-Pith and 
substance of legislation-·Central Excises and Salt Act, I944 (I of 
I944), ss. 6, 8, Riiles-Govermnent of India Act, I935 (26 Geo. V. 
Ch. 2), s. IOO, Sch. 7, List I, Entry 45, List II, Entries 27, 29. 
The petitioner who was doing business in tobacco was 
charged with the contravention of Rules 15r(C) and 226 of the 
Central Excise Rules, 1944. framed under the Central Excises 
and Salt Act, 1944· The Collector finding the charges to be 
proved ordered confiscation of the goods found in the petitioner's 
warehouse and levied dutY thereon in lieu of confiscation and 
also imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,000. The petitioner challenged 
the validity of the orders on the grounds, inter alia, that ss. 6 and 
8 of the Act and the Rules made thereunder were beyond the 
legislative competence of the Central legislature in view of the 
fact that though the provisions of the Act which provided for the 
levy of excise duties might fall within item 45 of List I read with 
s. mo of the Government of India Act, 1935, the Act in question 
would also be covered by items 27 and 29, of List II, as the 
possession and trade in tobacco were also regulated, and would, 
to that extent, be ultra vires. 
. 
.. 
-
,_ 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
363 
I959 
Chaturbhai 
Held, that the various provisions of the Central Excises and 
Salt Act, Ig44, and the Rules made thereunder were essentially 
connected with the levying and collection of excise duty and in 
its true nature and character the Act remained one under item 45 
M. Patel 
of List I and that the incidental trenching upon the provincial 
. v. 
. -
field of items 27 or 29 of List II would not' affect its constitution- The Union °1 India 
ali ty. 
and Others 
It is within the competence of the Central legislature to 
provide for matters which may otherwise fall within the 
competence of the Provincial Legislature if they are necessarily 
incidental to,effective legislation by the Central legislature on a 
subject of legislation expressly within its power. 
State of Rajasthan v. G. Chawla, A.LR. I959 S.C. 544, and 
Cooverjee Bharucha v. The Excise Commissioner of Ajmer, [I954] 
S.C.R. 873, followed. 
Attorney-General for Canada v. Attorney-General for British 
Columbia, [r930] A.C. rrr and Attorney-General for Canada v. 
Attorney-General for Quebec, [1947] A.C. 33. relied on. 
0RIGINAJ, JURISDICTION: Petition No. 9 of 1957. 
Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of 
India for enforcement of fundamental rights. 
B. D. Sharma, for the petitioner. 
0. K. Daphtary, Solicitar.General of India R. H. 
Dhebar and T. M. Sen, for the respondents. 
1959. December 2. 
The Judgment of the Court 
was deliver_ed by 
KAPUR J.-The petitioner was a wholesale and 
retail dealer in tobacco at Banaras and also owned a 
private bonded warehouse for tobacco and held licen-
ces for the same. In this petition he challenges the 
legality of certain orders passed by the Collector of 
Excise, Allahabad, which on appeal were confirmed and 
revisions against those orders were dismissed by the 
Central Government. The petitioner's warehouse was 
checked by Jnspector Das who on finding some irregu-
larity sealed the warehouse on December 8, 1953, and 
subsequently took possession of all the registers and 
stock cards. On December 22, 1953, IH bags of kandi 
i.

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