HANSRAJ MOOLJI versus THE STATE OF BOMBAY

Citation: [1957] 1 S.C.R. 634 · Decided: 12-02-1957 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: NATWARLAL HARILAL BHAGWATI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

1957 
K.N.Mehra 
v. 
The State of 
Rajasthan 
Jagannadhadas J. 
1957 
February 12, 
634 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1957] 
in the appellant's situation should be sent back to jail 
to serve 
out 
the rest 
of 
the sentence. 
We have 
ascertained 
from 
the 
Advocate 
appeanng 
for the 
Government that the appellant 
has already 
served 
a 
sentence of 11 months and 27 days. Learned 
counsel 
for the appellant has also informed us that the appel-
lant was in judicial custody for about eleven months as 
an under-trial prisoner. In view of all the circumstances 
of the case, we agree that the interests of 
justice 
do 
not call for his being sent back to jail. 
While, therefore, maintaining the conviction of the 
appellant, 
K. N. Mehra, we reduce 
the sentence 
of 
imprisonment 
against 
him to 
the 
period 
already 
undergone. 
The sentence of fine and the sentence 
of 
imprisonment in default 
thereof shall stand. 
With this 
modification, in sentence, the appeal is dismissed. 
Appeal dismissed, and sentence modified. 
HANSRAJ MOOLJI 
ti. 
THE STATE OF BOMBAY 
[BHAGWATJ, JAGANNADHADAS, )AFER IMAM, 
· GovINDA MENON and j. L. KAPUR, JJ.J 
Ordinance, 
duration 
of-Promulgaiion 
under the Emergency 
ProvisionJ-Declaration 
of ter1nination 
of emergency-Scope and 
effect-Operation of Ordinance after end of emergency-Government 
of India Act, 1935 (25 & 26 Geo. 5 Ch. 42). Sch. 9 s. 72-India 
and Burma (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1940 (3 & 4 Geo. 6 Ch. 33), 
ss. 1 (3), J-High Denomination 
Bank Not('s 
(Demonetisation) 
Ordinance, 1946 (Ordinance No. III of 1946), ss. 4. 7. 
Under s. 72 of the 9th Sch. of the Government of India Act, 
1935 : "The Governor-General may, in cases of en1ergency, make 
and promulgate ordinances ... and any ordinance so 1nadc shall, for 
the space of not more than six months from its pron1ulgation, 
have the like force of la\.V as an Act passed by the Indian Legis-
lature . .. "; s. I ( ~) of the 
India 
and 
Burma 
( E1nergency 
Provi-
sions) Act, 1940, provided that s. 72 of the Government of India 
Act, 1935, shall as respects 
Ordinances made during the period 
beginning with Tune 27, 1940, the <late of the passing of that Act, 
and ending \.Vith such date as 
His Majesty may by 
Order in 
Council declare to be the end of the emergency, have effect as if 
... 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
635 
the words "for the 
space of not more than six 
months from its 
1957 
Promulgation" were omitted. 
H 
.. 
ansrqi Moo!;• 
The appellant was prosecuted for having on July 11, 1953, 
contravened the provisions of s. 
4 of the 
High 
Denomination 
Bank Notes (Demonetisation) Ordinance, 1946. 
The 
Ordinance 
was promulgated by the 
Governor-General of India on 
January 
12, 1946, but on April 1, 1946, an Order in Council was published 
in the Gazette of 
India Extraordinary whereby the period of 
emergency referred to in the 
India 
and 
Burma 
(Emergency 
Provisions) Act, 1940, was 
declared to have ended on April 1, 
1946. 
It was contended for the appellant that the 
Ordinance in 
question was not in operation on the date when the offence was 
alleged to 
have been committed and that therefore the 
prose-
cution was not maintainable, because ( 1) the Ordinance had been 
promulgated in exercise of 'the emergency 
powers 
and that it 
lapsed ipso facto on April 1, 1946, when the declaration was made 
that the emergency 
was at an end; and (2) s. 72 of the 9th 
Sch. of the 
Government of India Act, 1935, having been restored 
with effect from April 1, 1946, one must look to its terms as they 
originally stood, to justify the continuance of the Ordinance after 
April 1, 1946. 
Held, that the deletion of the words "for the space of not 
more than six months from its promulgation" from s. 72 of the 
9th Sch. of the Government of India Act, 1935, by s. 1 ( 3) of the 
India and 
Burma (Emergency Provisions) 
Act, 1940, had the 
effect of equating Ordinances which were promulgated between 
June 27, 1940, and April I, 1946, with Acts passed by the Indian 
Legislature without ari.y 
limitation of 
timt" 
as 
regards their 
duration, and 
therefrre continuing in force 
until they 
were 
repealed. 
Though after April 
1, 1946, s. 72 of the 9th 
Sch. of the 
Government of India Act, 1935, was restored in its original form, 
the continuance of the Ordinance in question after that date had 
to be determined having regard to the terms of the section as 
they stood on the date of such promulgation, as there was nothing 
t

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