LexJAGANNATH AND OTHERS versus UNION OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
L. N. Muklt1rjr•
••
St till of M odrtis
Raghuba"
Doyol j.
April ao.
118
f
f
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1962]
jurisdiction to try the offence of criminal conspiracy
can also try offences committed in pursuance of that
conspiracy even if those offences were committed out •
side the jurisdiction of th st Court, ss the provisions of
s. 239, Criminal Procedure Code, sre not controlled by
the provisions of s. 177, Criminal Procedure Code, which
do not crestP a.n absolute prohibition against the trial
of offences by s Court other than the one within whose
jurisdiction the offence is committed. On s parity of
reasoning, the Court having jurisdiction to try the
offences committ~d in pursuance of the conspiracy,
ca.n try the offence of conspiracy even if it we.a com-
mitted outside its jurisdiction. We therefore hold
that the ordn under appeal is correct snd, according-
ly, dismiss this sppesl.
Appeal dismissed.
JAGANNATH AND OTHERS
v.
UNION OF INDIA
(P. n. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A. K. SARKAR,
K. N. WANOJIOO, ICC. DAS GUP'l'A, snd
N. RAJAOOPALA AYYANGAR JJ.)
Excise Duty-Tobacco-Diffrrenl rates for 111llole leaf and
broken leaf-If discriminatory-Central Excises and Salt Act,
1944 (/ of z944), First Schedule Entry 4(I) Items 5 and 6-COll·
stitution of India, Art. 14.
Item 5 of entry 4(1) of the First Schedule to the Central Ex-
cise and Salt Act, 1944, itnposes an excise duty of I{s. I-Io nP. per
kilogram on tobacco other than flue cured and not actually used
for the manufacture of cigarettes, smoking mixtures for pipes
and cigarettrs or biris in the whole leaf form. Item 6 imposes
a duty of Rs. 2-20 nP. per kilogram on tobacco in the broken
leaf form. The petitioners who dealt in tobacco in the broken
leaf form contended that their tobacco could not be distinguish-
ed on any rational basis from the whole leaf form in Item 5 and
the imposition of a double tariff on their !obacco was invalid
as it was based on unconstitutional discrimination, the tariff
being on the basis of use to which the tobacco was put.
r •
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
119
Held, that there was no.unconstitutional discrimination in
!96<
the imposition of the excise duty on tobacco in the broken leaf
form.
Tobacco in the broken leaf form was capable of being
]agannath
used in the manufacture of biris while tobacco in the whole
v.
leaf form could not be so used economically. The two forms of Union of India
tobacco were different by the test of capability of user. The
tariff was not based either wholly or even primarily by reference
to the use of tobacco. There was a clear and unambiguous dis-
tinction between tobacco in the whole leaf form covered by
item 5 and tobacco in the broken leaf form covered by item 6
which had a reasonable relation to the object intended by the
imposition of the tariff.
Kunmathat Thathunni Moopil Nair v. The State of Kerala,
[1961] 3 S.C.R. 77, referred to.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION:
Writ Petition No. 84 of
1958.
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India
for enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
G. G. Mathur, for the petitioners.
G. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India, B. Sen,
R. H. Dhebar and T. M. Sen, for the respondent~
1961. April 20.
The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
GAJENDRAGADKAR, J.-This is a petition filed underGajend1agadka1 J.
Art. 32 of the Constitution challenging the validity of
the excise tariff imposed by cl. (6) in entry 4(1) in the
First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act,
1944 (I of 1944). Petitioners Nos. 1 to 17 are tobacco
cultivators and they carry on the trade and business
of growing tobacco and of selling it in Kaimganj
Tahsil in the District of Farrukhabad in Uttar Pra-
desh. Petitioners 18 to 30 are partners or proprietors
or agents of firms which are private bonded werehouse
licencees and they carry on trade and business of pur-
' chasing tobacco from the cultivators and of selling the
same to dealers or to other private warehouse licencees.
By their petition the petitioners have asked for a writ,
direction or order in the nature of mandamus to be
issued to the respondent, the Union of India, restrain-
ing it from levyir.g excise duty on hooka and chewing
tobacco under the impugned item and any other writ,
direction or order which may be found suitable to
120
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1962]
protect the fundamental rights of the petitioners .to
carry on their trade and business of dealing in hooka
jExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.