MANGI LAL versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [1970] 2 S.C.R. 270 · Decided: 09-09-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

270 
MANGI LAL 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
September 9, 1969 
A 
(S. M. SIKRI, G. K. MITTER AND P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JJ.] 
B 
Maharashtra /war (Restriction on purchase and sale and control ,of 
move111ent) Order, I96~Provision for forfeiting packages, covering and 
receptacles In-If authorises fo11feiture of Juar-Defence of India Rules, 
r. 125(a)-Rule if ultra vires as contravening s. 114 Evidence Act. 
The appellant was convicted and sentenced under r. 125(a) Defence 
of India Rules for contravening cl. 4(b) of the Maharashtra Jwar (Res· 
C 
triction on purchases ond sale and control of movement) Order, 1964, 
for contravening Buldana District Price Control Order, 1965; and for 
contravening cl. 3 of the Maharashtra Foodgrains (Declaration of Stock) 
(Second) 
Order, 1964. 
The 
Magistrate 
furthec 
ordered that the 
maddamal (Juar) before the court be confiscated by the Government. 
The appellant appealed unsuccessfully to the Sessions Judge. 
But the 
High Court set aside ti1c conviction and sentence under cJ. 3 of the 
Maharashtra Food Graios (Declaration of Stock) Order, and maintained 
D 
the other convictions 
in an appeal to this Court the appellant conte!lded 
that (i) the High Court having set aside the conviction under cl. 3 of 
the Maharashtra Foodgrains (Declaration of Stocks) (Second) Order, 
1964 the order for forfeiture could not be maintained because the Maha-
rashtra Jwar (Restriction on Purchase and sa1e and control of movement) 
Order, 1964, and the Buldana District Jwar (Price Control) Order 1965 
did not contain any provision authorising the court -to forfeit; and (ii) 
r. 141(2) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 was ultra vires because it 
I 
laid down a rule of evidence contrary to the law contained in s. 114 of 
the Indian Evidence, Act. 
HELD : (i) The order of forfeiture was illegal. Tue only provision 
·contained in the Maharashtra Jwar (Restriction on Purchase and Sale and 
Control of Movement) Order, 1964, is regarding forfeiture of packages 
covering or receptacles in which any stocks 
0f juar 
are found. 
This 
does not enable the Court to order forfeiture of juar. 
The Buldana 
F 
District Juar (Price, Control) Order authorises the Collector to 
seize 
stocks but does not enable the Court to forfeit juar. [274 HJ 
(ii) r. 141(2) is within the powers conferred by s. 3(1) of the 
Defence of India Act. 
The fact that the rule is contrary to an exist;ng 
Act does not matter because s. 43 of the Defence of India Act provides 
that "the provisions of this' Act or any rule ma0e, thereunder or any 
order made under anv such rule shall have effect notwithstanding anything 
G 
inconsistent therewith contained in any enactment other than this Act 
or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any enactment other than 
this Act." [275 F-GJ' 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
193 of 1967. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
March 7, 1967 of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench in 
Criminal Revision Application No. 306 of 1966. 
H 
,. 
MANG! LAL V. MAHARASHTRA (Sikri, J,) 
271 
A 
G. N. Dikshit, S. K. Bisaria and R. N. Sachthey, for the 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
appellant. 
H. R. Khanna and S. P. Nayar, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Sikri J. 
This Court granted special leave to appeal in this 
, 
. 
. 
case limited to the followmg two pomts : 
( 1 ) whether the confiscation of the foodgrains in the 
house of the appellant was legal; and 
(2) whether r. 141 (2) of the Defence of India Rules, 
1962 is not ultra vires the Defence of India Act. 
The facts relevant to the first pqint are as follows : Certain 
shpherds belonging to a wandering' tribe 
~ere apprehended 
by the police one night while they were carrymg . 12 
bag~ages 
containing juar on tile backs of 12 horses. 
On bemg ~uest1on.ed 
they informed the police that they had purchased all this quunllty 
of juar from the appellant at the rate of 78 paise per kg. 
On 
this information the police raided the houses of the 
appellwt 
and forther found 34 quintals and 63 kgs of juar. 
The appellant 
had two houses at Janephal and in one house 3 quintal; 
and 
48 kgs while in the other house 31 quintals and 18 kgs. of juar 
was found, which was sei7ed by the police. 
The last declaration 
of stock which had been given by the appellant was on June 5, 
1965. 
The appellant was tried and convicted on three courts by the 
Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mehkar. He was convicte

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