JOYLAL AGARWALA versus THE STATE

Citation: [1952] 1 S.C.R. 127 · Decided: 04-10-1951 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HARILAL JEKISUNDAS KANIA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
127 
Sant.bat MalttofJ 
•\ 
JOYLAL AGARWALA 
t1. 
THE STATE 
UNION OF INDIA-Intervener. 
BICHAN CHAND MORTA 
t1. THE STATE 
* 
[HARILAL KANIA C. J., PATANJALI SAsTRI, 
MuKHERJEA, DAs and CHANDRASEKHARA ArYAT JJ.] 
ii>" 
Essrntial Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act (XXIV of 1946), 
ss. l 
(~), 7-Applicability to "excluded areas"-Dumtion of Act 
extended in British India by Governor-General, and by Constituent 
Assembly after Indian 
Independence 
Act, 1947-Whether 
Act 
. continues to be in force in excluded areas-Necessity of fresh notifi-
<ation-Delegation of legislative powers-Government of India Act, 
1935, s. 92 (1). 
The Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act (XXlV of 
l 
1946) ca.me into force on 19th November, 1946. By a notification 
~-
.v. 
Kam/a P,ras1Jtl. 
Mukherjea /. 
1951 
Oct. 4. 
19.51 
Joy/al Ag"""""' 
•• 
The Sldk 
128 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1952} 
of 14th December, 1946, under s. 92 ( 1) of the Government 
of India Art, 1935, the Governor of Bengal directed that the Act 
shall apply to the District of Darjeeling which was an 
"excluded 
area". Section 1 (3) of the Essential Supplies Act provided that 
it shall cease to have effect on the expiration of the . period 
mentioned in s. 4 of the India (Central Government and Legis-
lature) Act, 
1946. 
By 
a 
notification issued by the Governor-
General under s. 4 the operation of the Essential Supplies Act 
was extended up to 31st March, 1948. 
The Constituent Assembly 
in which· the p<nvers of the Houses -of Parliament under s. 4 of the · 
abovesaid India Act of 1946 became vested after the passing of 
the Indian Independence Act, 1947, passed resolutions extending 
the operation of the Essential Supplies Act up to 31st March, 
1950. 
appellant, who was convicted under s. 7 of the Act in 
respect of an act committed on the 14th October, 1949, 
within 
Darjeeling, contended that the Act \Vas not validly extended to 
the DiStrict of Darjeeling and was not therefore in force there on 
the date of the alleged offence. Held, that, as the Governor's 
notific.ation extended the Act to the District of Darjeeling without 
specifying any particular 
period for 
its applicability, the 
Art 
would remain in force in this district as long as it remained in 
force in the rest of India and a fr<Sh notification of the Governor 
under s. 92 (1) of the Government of India Act, 1935, was not 
necessary. 
Under the adaptations made under ss. 9 and 19 of the 
Indian Independence Act the powers conferred on the Howes 
of Parliament became vested in the Constituent Assembly and 
the Act was in force in the district of Darjeeling on the date of 
the alle~d contravention of the Act. 
Held further, that there was no question of delegation of legi•-
lative power in this case as the Legislature had itself 
applied its 
mind and fixed 
the duration 
of the Act, leaving only the 
machinery to reach the maximum period to be worked out ill a 
particular manner. 
CRIMINAL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION : 
Crimin.'.ll 
Appeals No. 7 of 1950 and No. 25 of 1951. 
Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 1950 was an appeal under 
Art. 134 (1) (c) from the Judgment and Order of the 
High Court of Calcutta dated 23rd May, 1950, in 
Government Appeal No. 2 of 1950 and 
Criminal 
Appeal No. 25 of 1951 was an appeal by special leave 
from the Judgment and Order of the same Court dated 
4th May, 1950, in Criminal Revision No. 132 of 1950. 
Apt Kumar Datta and S. N. Mukherjee for the 
appellant in both the appeals. 
B. Sen for the respondent in both appeals. 
G. N. Joshi for the Intervener. 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
129 
1951. October 4. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
CHANDRASEKHARA 
AIYAR 
J.-These two criminal 
appeals are from convictions of the appellants by the 
High Court at Calcutta. In the first case, leave to 
appeal to this Court was granted by the High Court 
under article 134 ( 1) ( c) of . the Constitution of India. 
In the second case, special leave to appeal was granted 
by this Court under article 136(1) of the CoilSltitution. 
The appeals were heard together, but as they are by 
different parties and the facts are different, it is desir-
able to have two separate judgments. 
Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 1950. 
The appellant, Joylal Agarwala, who was a sales-
man in a retail shop in Pulbazar in the district 
of 
Darjeeling in the State of West Bengal, was charged 
with having sold a piece of textile cloth at a price in 
exces.<il of the controlled price

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