SANTOSH KUMAR JAIN versus THE STATE

Citation: [1951] 1 S.C.R. 303 · Decided: 05-03-1951 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HARILAL JEKISUNDAS KANIA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
SANTOSH KUMAR JAIN 
"· 
THE STATE. 
UNION OF INDIA-Intervener. 
[SHRI HARILAL KANIA C.J., PATANJALI SASTRI, 
and DAs JJ.] 
303 
Emntial Supplies (TemP<miry Powers) Act (XXlV ·of 1946), 
s. 3-Power to "provide for regulating or prohibiting production, 
supply 11nd Ji11ribution" of goods-W heiher 
includes 
power 
to 
issue directions 111!d 
orden to 
particular persons to do 
specific 
acts-Order to se11rch 11nd seize goods held by particular company 
-V11lidity-Scope -0/ Sflb-ss. (1) & (2) of s. 3-Generality of powers 
conferred· by sub-s. (!)-Obstruction to officers carr.ying out .. order 
for s_eizure-Con11iction 
under 
s. 
186, 
l.P.C.-Legality-lndian 
Penal Code, 1860, s. 186-0ffence under, essentials of. 
Section 3 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) 
Act, 
1946, provided as follows : 
( 1) The Central 
Government, so far as it appears to it to 
be necessary or expedient for maintaining or increasing supplies 
cif an essential commodity, or for 
securing their equitable distri-
bution 
and availability at fair , prices, 
may be 
notified 
order, 
provide for regulating or prohibiting the production, supply and 
distribution thereof, 
and trade and commerce therein. 
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the 
powers con-
ferred by sub-s. ( 1) an order made thereunder may provide ..... . 
(j) for any incidental and supplementary matters, including in 
particular the . entering, and search of premises, vehicles, 
vessels 
and aircraft, the 
seizure by a person authorised to make 
sucht 
search of any articles in respect of which such person has reason 
to liclieve that a contravention has been, is .being, or is about to 
be committed ...... " 
In exercise of the powers conferred on the Central Govern-
ment by cl. (j) of sub-s. (2) of s. (3) of the above said Act, which 
had been delegated to the Provincial Government in 
relation to 
foodstuff!, the Governor of Bihar made an order authorising the 
District Magistrate, Patna, and the Special Officer in charge of 
rationing, Patna, to search the stock of sugar held by a company 
of which the appellant was the General Manager and directing 
the seizure of 5.000 maunds of sugar held in stock by the said 
company, on the ground that the company was about to commit 
a contravention of an order of the Chief Controller of Prices and 
Supplies made 
under the Sugar aud Sugar Products CQ!ltrol 
6--2 S. C. India/68 
1951 
~iuch ~. 
1951 
Santosh Kamat 
Jain 
v. 
The State 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1951) 
Order, 1947. 
The appellant obstructed the officers who went to 
search and seize the goods and was convicted under s. 186, Indian 
Penal Code. 
Held, 
(i) the power "to provide for regulating or prohibiting 
production, 
supply 
and 
distribution" conferred by the 
Act on 
the 
Central 
Government included the 
power 
tO 
regulate 
or 
prohibit by issuing directions to a 
particular producer or 
dealer 
or by requiring any specific act to be done or foreborne in regard 
to production, etc., 
and the order of the Governor was not there-
fore invalid on the ground that it was not a rule or regulation of 
general application but an order concerning a pa1ticular 
company 
alone; 
(ii) sub-section ( 2) 
of s. 3 conferred no further 
or other 
powers than What were conferred by sub-s. (1) and· the enumera· 
tion of certain matters in !llUb-s. (2) was 
merely 
illustrative, 
as 
such enumeration 
was 
"without prejudice to 
the 
generality of 
the powers conferred by sub-s. (!)"; 
(iii) seizure of an article 
being within the purview of 
sub-s. ( l) of s. 3 it was 
therefore 
competent to the 
Central 
Government, 
and its 
delegate the 
Provincial 
Government, 
to 
make an 
order for. seizure under sub-s. 
( 1) 
apart from and 
irrespective of 
the anticipated 
contravention of any other 
order 
as contemplated in cl. (j) of sub-section (2); 
(iv) even assuming that the order of the 
Chief 
Controller 
of 
Prices .under the 
Sugar Control 
Order was incomplete 
and 
inoperative and there could be no question of its contravention, 
the rc::fereni;::e to that order in the 
order 
made by 
the Governor 
would be a mere redundancy and would not affect the validity of 
the latter order, 
and the appellant was rightly 
convicted 
under 
s. 186; Penal Code. 
Quaere : Whether for an offence under s. 186, Penal Code, it 
i.s 
necessary that 
the 
act which was 
obstructed must be 
duly 
authorised and otherwise lawful. 
King Emperor v. Sibnath B

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