SISIR KUMAR DUTTA versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Citation: [1953] 1 S.C.R. 644 · Decided: 05-12-1952 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. PATANJALI SASTRI · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

1958 
Syed Qasim 
Razvi 
v. 
The Stat• of 
Hyderabad 
and Others. 
1952 
Dec. 5. 
644 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1953) 
ORDER. 
BY THE CounT :-As the 
Constitutional 
issue~ 
raised in the petitions have also been raised in the 
appeals preferred by the petitioners they have been 
dealt with in the appeals by consent of parties, and 
the petitions are dismis•ed. The constitutional points 
in the appeals having been decided against the 
appellants by the maiority 
the appeals will be 
heard on other points when the appeals are ready for 
hearing. 
' 
Petitions dismiss ea. 
Agent for the petitioners/a,ppellants: Rajinder 
Narain. 
Agent for the respondent: G. H. Rajadhyaksha. 
SISIR KUMAR DUTTA 
v. 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
UNION OF INDIA-Intervener. 
[PATANJALI SASTRI, C.J., MuKHERJEA, CHANDRA-
SEKHARA AIYAR, VIVIAN BOSE and GHULAM 
HASAN JJ). 
Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, s. 4-Exten-
sion of Act up to 31st March, 1951, by resol!ttion of Constituent 
Assembly - Validity-Powers 
of 
Constituent 
Assembly-India 
(Central Government and Legislature) Act, 1946, ss. 4, 4·k-India 
(Provisional Constitution) Order, 1947-Constitution of India, 
1950, Arts. 372, 379 (1), 394. 
The Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, a 
temporary Act which was being extended from time to time after 
the date of its first expiry, for a year at a time, was extended up 
to the 31st March, 1951, from the 31st March, 1950, by a resolu-
tion passed by the Constituent Assembly (Legislative) at a meet-
ing held on the 20th December, 1949. 
The appellant who was 
convicted for an offence committed under the Act on the 24th 
October, 1950, contended that the Constituent Assembly had no 
power to extend the Act in view of the provisions of Art. 379 (1) 
of the Constitution, and that at any rate it had no power to 
~11tend the duration o! the Act beyond the 26th January, 1950; 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME 'COURT REPORTS 
645 
Held, that, even assuming that under Art. 379 (l) the Provi-
sional Parliament was intended to function 
from the 26th 
November, 1949, and not from the 26th January, 1950, as the 
Constituent Assembly was to continue in existence till the 26th 
January, 1950, the power conferred nn it as a designated body by 
the India (Central Government and Legislature) Act, 1946, of the 
British Parliament as adapted by the Indfa (Provisional Con-
stitution) Order, 1947, could be validly exercised on the 20th 
December, 1949, and was so exercised when it passed the resolu-
tion on that date. The Provisional Parliament was not a body 
authorised to exercise the special power of approving the exten-
sion of the period mentioned in s. 4 of the Inaia Act of 1946 as 
that was not one of the powers conferred by the Constitution on 
the Provisi9nal Parliament, nor can bringing the Provisional 
Parliament into existence on the 26th November, 1949, assuming 
that to be the case, be regarded as "other provision" made by 
the Constituent Assembly within the meaning of s. 4 of the 
India Act ot 1946. 
Held further, that the resolution extending the life of the Act 
beyond the 26~h of January, 1950, was not invalid, as it came into 
immediate effect and not on the 1st of .\pril, 1950, when the pre-
vious extension expired. Accordingly thi2 Act with its duration ex-
tended by virtue of the resolution was an Act immediately in force 
before the commencement of the Constitution and so was saved 
by Art. 372 (1) and Explanation III. 
CR!ilHNAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Case No. 275 
of 195 l. Appeal under Art. 132 (1) of the Constitu-
tion of India from the Judgment and Ordal' dated 
April 11, 1951, of the High Court of 'Judicature at 
Calcutta (Das Gupta and Mookerjee JJ.) in Crimi-
nal Revision Case No. 1028 of 1950 arising out of 
the Order dated November 23, 1950, of the Presid-
ency Magistrate, 8th Court, Calcutta, in P. R. Case 
No. 2107 of 1950. 
N. C. Chakravarti for the appellant. 
B. Senior the respondent. 
M. C. Setalvad, Attorn~y-General for India (P. A. 
Mehta, with him), for the intervener. 
1952. December 5. 
'rhe Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
BosE J.-This is au appeal under article 132 (1) 
of the Constitution. Leave to appeal was granted by 
the High Court at Calcutt!\. 
Bt 
• 
1952 
Si.sir Kumir 
Dutt'l 
v. 
Shte of West 
Bengal 
195• 
Sisi'I" Kumr7.r 
Bu-tta 
v. 
State of West 
Bengal 
}Jose J. 
646 
SUPRFlME COURT REPOR1'S 
[1953) 
The appellant was convicted under section 7 (1) of 
the Essential Supplies (Temporary Pow
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.