JANARDAN versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [1978] 3 S.C.R. 586 · Decided: 04-04-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
586 
JANARDAN 
l'-
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
April 4, 1978 
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ.] 
IJ0112b1;y Prevention of Ga1nbfi11g Act, (Boni. Act 
IV 
of 
1887), 
1887, 
~
Section 6 read lVith Bon1bay Police Act, 1951 and S. 17 of Bombay 
General 
Clauses Act, 1886-Anibit, scope and interpretation of Section 6 of Gambling 
Act-Whether the Assistant Con11nissioner of Police can validly issue search 
warra111. 
'fhe ar,pellant along with sixteen· others was convicted under section 4 of the 
Gambling Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two months and a 
fine of Rs. 400/- or in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. 
The appeUaut alone filed a revision before the High Court and an appeal to 
this Court. by obtaining a certificate from the High Court. It was contended 
that the 5carch warrant issued by the Assistant Commissioner which formed 
the basis of his conviction was lega1ly invalid, and, therefore. the conviction 
was not sustainable in law. 
D:sn1issing the appeal, the Court 
Per f~azal A Ii, J. 
HELD : l. The conviction of the appelJant does not suffer from any infir-
n1ity and n1ust be upheld. 
But having regard to the fact that the offence took 
place more than ten years herein before, the interests of justice. do not require 
that he should be sent back to ja!L 
[592 B-C] 
LWhilc maintaining the' sentence of fine awarded under both 
the Courts 
na1uely Secti0ns 4 and 5 of the Gambling Act, the sentences of imprisonment 
were modified to the period already undergone] 
2. It '"'-ould be seen fronJ__ a pen1sal of section 6 of the Gan1bling Act that 
as the term 'Commissioner of Police' has not been defined any where in the Act 
it cannot filer se include· an Assistant Commissioner and the provisions of the 
Police Act which was passed long after the Gambling Act could not be pressed 
into service, unless there was some other Act which could make the provisions 
of the Pol-ice Act applicable to the Gambling Act. 
Prilna facie, therefore, the 
contention of the appellant seems to be tenable. 
[589 G-H] 
3. (a) Bombay General Clauses Act of 1886 was amended by Act I of 
~ 
1904 which doubtless was an Act passed before the coming into force of the 
- , 
Gambling Act Section 17 of the Bombay General Clauses Act \vhich remain-
ed unan1cnded even after the Amendment Act of 1904 runs thus :-
... r 
"17(1) In any Bombay Act made after the con1menccment of this 
Act it shall be sufficient for the purpose of indicating the application 
of law to every person or number of persons for the time being execut~ 
ing the functions of an office, to mention the official title of the officer 
at present executing the fu11ctions. or that of the officer by whom the 
functions are commonly executed." 
Analysing this definition it would appear that any official title of the officer 
mentioned in any Act made after the General Clauses Act would deem by 
fiction of law to include anv such official title referred to in any Act passed after 
the General Clauses Act. Not only the official title but even the functions 
executed by the said officer would also be deemed to .have been. exercised by 
the officer designated in the subsequent Act The combined effect. therefore, of 
f 
-
.. 
-
,. •• 
' 
JANARDAN V. MAHARASHTRA STATE 
587 
"Section 6 o[ the (Jatnbling Act and Section 17(1) of the General Clauses 1\ct 
A 
'\vould be that lhe tcrn1 'Commissioner of Police' \\'OUld include all officers v,ibo 
are executing: or perforn1ing the functions of the Commissioner of Police 
as 
defined or authorised under the latter Act, nan1ely, the Police Act. 
[589 H. 590 CJ 
(b) A perusal of section 11 of the Police Act leads 
to 
the 
inescapable 
.conclusion that an Assistant Commissioner appointed under sub-section ( 1) hi 
to perforn1 such duties and functions as can be exercised under the L\ct or any 
other JaVi--- for the titne being in force, which undoubtedly includes the Gambling 
B 
Act which was a lrl\v in force at the time when the Police Act v..·as 
passed. 
Apart from this the Assistant Com1nissioner could nlso perform those functions 
which could be assigned to hi1n by the Commissioner under the 
gcncrnl 
or 
spccia! orders of the State Government. 
[591 A-B] 
4. Having regard to the con1bined reading of the provisions of section 17 4lf 
the General Clauses Act and the Police Act the term 'Commissioner of Police' 
appearing in section 6 of the Gambling Act would include c· .. en an
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.