DARSHAN SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [1953] 1 S.C.R. 319 · Decided: 05-12-1952 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. PATANJALI SASTRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

• 
-
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPOR'l'S 
DARSHAN SINGH 
v. 
STA'rE OF PUNJAB. 
ATTAR SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB. 
UNION OF INDIA-INTERVENER. 
[PATANJALI SAsTRI c.J., MuKHERJEA, 
OHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR, VIVIAN BosE and 
GHULAM HASAN J J.] 
319 
East Punjab Cotton Cloth and Yarn Order, 1947-Provincial 
law prohibiting export of essential cr:rmrnodity without perrnit-
Validity-Essential Supplies (Teniporary Powers) Act, 1946, ss. 3 
and 4-" ':Trade and Cornrnerce ", rneaninr; of-Whether include 
export-Constrnction of statutes-Acts rnust be construed as a whole. 
Section 3 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 
1946, which was passed by the Indian Legislature in 1946 em-
powered the Central Government by notified order to provide for 
regulating and prohibiting the production, supply and distribution 
of any essential commodity and trade and commerce therein; s. 4 
of the Act empowered the Central Government to delegate its 
powers under s. 3 to the Provincial Government or any officer 
thereof. The Governor of the Punjab to whom such powers had 
been delegated under s. 4 passed the East Punjab Cotton Cloth 
and Yarn Control Order, 1947, wl1ich prohibited the export of 
cotton cloth and yarn to any country outside India except under a 
permit, and made export without permit an offence. 
The validity 
of this order was questioned on the ground that the Governor had 
acted in .excess of his powers in so far as he prohibited export out-
side India without a permit: 
· 
Held, (i) that, keeping the object of the Essential Supplies Act, 
1946, in view and reading the words " trade and commerce " in 
s. 3 of the Act in the light of the context, these words could be in-
terpreted as including the export of goods outside the Province 
including a neighbouring foreign State and the Governor in passing 
the impugned Order did not 11.ct in excess of the powers delegated 
to him; 
(ii) that as the Central Legislature was fully competent to 
legislate on exports and imports and making any provision relating 
thereto under the Government of India Act, 1935, it had power to 
make a law prohibiting export to a foreign State, even apart from 
the powers conferred on it by the India (Central Government a.nd 
a.nd Legislature) Act, 1946 (9 & 10 Geo. VI, c. 39); 
1952 
Dec. 5. 
320 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1953] 
1952 
(iii) even taking the legislation to be purely on the provincial 
• 
subjects of production, distribution and supply of goods, restriction 
Darshan Singh of import as ancillary to production and supply of essential com-
. v. 
modi ties would be quite within the scope and ambit of such legis-
Th• State of 
latton and in pith and substance the enactment would be one 
Punjab. 
dealing exclusively with these provincial matters. 
It is a cardinal rule of interpretation that the language used 
by the legislature is the true depository of the legislative intent, 
and that words and phrases occurring in a statute are to be taken 
not in an isolated or detached manner dissociated from the context, 
but are to be read together and construed in the light of the 
purpose and object of the Act itself. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Cases Nos.11 
and 12 of 1950. Appeals under Art. 13~ (1) of the 
Constitution of India from the Judgment and Order 
dated April 5, 1950, of the High Court of Judicature 
for the State of Punjab at Simla (Khosla J.) in Cri-
minal Revision Nos. 1144and1147 of 1949. 
Achhru Ram (Gopal Singh, with him) for the appel-
lant in Case No. 11. 
H. J. Umrigar for the appellant in Case No. 12. 
S. M. Sikri (Advocate-General of Punjab) {H. S. 
Gujral, with him) for the respondent, the State of 
Punjab. 
M. 0. Setalvad (Attorney-General for India) ( B. Sen, 
with him) for the Intervener. 
1952. December 5. 
'l'he Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
MUKHERJEA J.-The facts giving rise to these two 
connected appeals may be briefly narrated as follows: 
Darshan Singh, the appellant in Case No. 11, and 
Attar Singh, who is the appellant in Case No. 12, 
along with three other persons were tried by the 
Special Magistrate, Ambala, East Punjab, on charges 
under section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, read 
with-section 3/10 of the East Punjab Cotton Cloth 
and Yarn (Regulation of Movement) Order, 1947, 
and section 7 of· the Essential Supplies Act, 1946. 
There was a further charge under section 8 of the 
Essential Supplies Act against three of these accused, 
Darshau Singh being one of them. 
-
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COU
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.