LexHARISHCHANDRA versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A - B c D E F G H HARISHCHANDRA v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH September 24, 1964 (A. K. SARKAR, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR AND R. S. BACHAWAT JJ.) 328 Essontial Supplios (Temporary Powors) Amondmont Act, 1950 (Act 52 of 1950) Proviso to s. 17 ( 4 )-<:entral logislation oxtondod to Part B State-Notification under corresponding State law not expressly ropoalod -whether survives-Subordinate legislation whether can survive repeal. of parent /aw-Association of porsons whether 'person' for purpose of prosecution-Liability of President of Association. The· Indian Scrap Order, 1943, passed under the Defence of India Rules, was after the expiration of the said Rules, preserved by the .Essen- tial Supplies Act, 1946. By (Central) Act 52 of 1950, the wd Act was extended, inter alia to the Po:rt B State of Madhya Bharat. That State already bad its corresponding· law on the subject, namely, the Madhya Bharat Essential Supplies Act, 1948, under which the Madhya Bharat Scrap Order, 1949 had been issued. While extending the Cen- tral legislation to the Part B States, Act 52 of 1950 also laid down, in s. 17(4) that the "corresponding law" in the State would stand repealed, with a proviso that the orders, directions etc., issued under the repealed law would continue. The appellant who was President of the Scrap Dealers Association, Indore, was prosecuted under the allegation that the A"'ociation had sold scrap iron at rates higher tho:n those fixed under the Indian Scrap Order. The defence taken was that the prices at which the sales had been effected were those fixed by a notification dated 26th August, 1949 under the Madhya Bharat Scrap Order which continu- ed in force. The appello:nt was acquitted by the trial Court but was con- victed by the High Court o:nd appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave. The contentions of the appellant were : (I) The Madhya Bharat Scrap Order had not been expressly repealed by the Indian Scrap Order and therefore it continued by force of the proviso to s. 17 ( 4) of the Act 52 of 1950, and, in any case, the notification dated 26th August, 1949, continu- ed in force as an independent piece of subordinate legislation. (2) The appellant as President of the Sc1'3P Dealers Associatio11 which was an unincorporated body could not be held liable for a sale in excess .of the authorised maximum price effected by a Munim or Munima of the Association. HELD : (i) ·The Central notification by which the Indian Scrap Order was extended to Madhya Bharat, no doubt, did not expressly pro- vide for the repeal of the Madhya Bharat Scrap Order, but the provi- sions of the two Orders were not identical and they could not. therefore, operate simultaneously. It was therefore obvious that on the extension to Madhya Bharat of the Indian Scrap Order, the Madhya Bharat Scrap Order was repealed and replaced by the Indian law. [331D]. (ii) The notification in questif>n could not survive even if it was treated as an independent piece of subordinate legislation under the Slate law. According to Craies, if the statute under which bye-laws are made is repealed, those bye-Jaws are impliedly repealed and cease to have any vnlid1ty unless the repealing statute contains some provioiDn preserving the validity of the bye-laws, ootwithsto:nding the repeal. Ao the parent 324 surREME COURT REPORTS [1965] 1 S.C.R. ordet undu which the notification dated August 26, 1949, was made had been: repealed without a saving, the effect was !hat the said notification also stood repealed. [333D; 333G-H; 334H). (iii) The definition of 'person' in lhe General Clauses Act includes within that term an unincorporaled body of persons. In the present case it was the Association that was given the faciliiy of· obtaining scrap al more favourable prices lhan dealers, and it was thll body which wa• subjected to control in the shape of having to sell what it had purchased from controlled sources at specified price... The argument ~ould not be accepted that the Association as such could not be penalised for !!Clling at unauthorised rates. The appellant as President of the Associalion wa. liable to be convicted by Yinue of s. 8 of the Essential Supplies (Tem- porary Powers) Ac1, J 946 which made the abetmenl of contravrnti•>n of any order under 1he Acl, also an offenc,,. [335C-D,PrF]. Waisvn v. Wi11clr. [1916] I K.B. 61'8 nod Craies on Sta1"1< Law. 61h Edn. 332, referred to. CRIMINAL
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.