LexSTATE OF GUJARAT versus CHATRABHUJ MAGANLAL AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D 1076 ·, r STATE OF GUJARAT v. CHATRABHUJ MAGANLAL AND ANOTHER April 1, 1976 . ,. [R. S. SARKARIA AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ;j - . ~ -~·;:;:;~ ,, Suppression Of [111111oral Traffic in W 01nen & Girls Act, notification e111powering all }l.fagistrates of First Class Would cial/y en1powered". 1956; s. 2(c)-lf make theni- "spec- l11terpretatio11 ~of statutes-Provision susceptible of two meaninis-Choice of 111eaning where pro1·isio11 confers power on Governn1ent for specific pur- pose. · .. ·sectic:-i 2(c). Suppression of Immoral Traffic in \Vomen and Girls -·.z\ct. 1956, defines a ~Iagistrate to mean a District 11agistrati. a Sub-Divisional ~Iagis trat_e of_ the First Class specially e1npowered by the State Government,· by notification in the official Gaz.ette~ to exercise jurisdiction under the Act. The appellant-State· issued a notification under_ the -section _empO~'ering c.ll l. the Judicial }t[agistrates of the Jst Class to e:\ercise jurisdiction to try c::nain _.., offences under the Act. Th~ High Court held that the notification did not have .ll''-e effect of making a ~[ag:stra'te one specially_ en1powered within the meaning of s. 2(c). Allowing the appeal to this Court, HELD : It is not necessary that the State Government -should pick 3nd chooc;e individual ).Iagistrates and confer special power on th~m. The notifica- tion had the effect of making every Judicial ?vfagistrate of the First Class-_in the State, within the area of his respective jurisdiction, a ~[agistrate specialJy E empowered to try those offences. [1083E; 1084C] F G H .\Johd. Qasinz & Anr. v. E111peror~ AIR, 1918 Mad. 1159; _ E1npernr v. Udlio Clu1nd11n1al, AIR 1943 Sind 107; Polublia Vajubha v. Tapu Buda, ·AIR 1956 Sau.- 73 and Sabuddin _Sheil..h Mansur v. J. S. Thakkar & Anr. ILR [19681 ):. Guj. 4, disapproved. K. N. Vijayan v. State, AIR 1953 Tr: Co. 402; State ·v. Judhahir· Caetri, AIR 1953 Ass<im 35; (F.H.); State of J,,fysore v. Kashan1bi & Anr. [1963] 2 Cr. L.J. 226: Ashaq Hussain Khan v. S.D.O. }.fanghfr. AIR 1965 Pat. 446 and C. l'. ,lfadha1·a J\Jan11adiar v. Distt. Collector & Ors., AIR 1970 Kerala 50. approved .. ( 1) \Vhere the language of a statutory pro\·ision is s,usceptibl:e of two inter- pretations, the one which promotes the object of the provision. comports best \.\-·ith its purpose and presen1es its smooth \vorking, should be chosen in prefer- ence to the other v.·hich introcluces inconvenience and uncertainty in the work- ing of the system. This rule will apply in full force where the prOvision con- fers ample discretion on the Government for a specific purpose to enable it to bring about an effective result. [1079G-1080A] (2) The \Vord .. specially" has reference to the special purpose of tf:ie empowerment and is not intended to convey the sense of a "sveciar• ilS con- trasted \.\-ith a .. general"' empowerment. ..Specially"' qualifies the word .. empowered" and not the person On whom the rov.·er is conferred. In this - ,·iew the State Government is wlthin its comtietence to confer powers under !he section on some or all of the 1\.fagistrates of the First Clas~ in the Slate~ 1n any of the modes knov.1n to law. and the 1\.Iagistrate or 1\.fagistrates, Oil whom powers are so conferred. V.'ill be "specially fmpowered" within the meaning of the section. This broad view keeps in focus the special purpose of the empowerment and must be preferred to the narrow view namely that the \\o·ord "specially" stands in contrast to the word .. genera11y"9. • Accordi.ng to ') \ GUJARAT v. CHATRABHUJ (Sark.aria, J.) 1077 • the narrow view if po\\crs to try certain offences are conferred on a c[as.'i c.f off~\:ials by their official title, they are .. generally empov.ered";. but if - l~e po\\ers are conferred on particular individuals by name or by yutue of their office, as a result of selection by the Governn1cnt, they are .. specially empo\ver .. cd"'. This view \Vhich reads into the expression .. specially empowered" · a restriction as to the nzode or manner of empowerment, is neither congeniat to the special purpose of the pro,·ision, nor conducive to the main ob~ect of the Act, and tends to reduce its efficacy and to impede the exercise of the di~cre-: tionary power \Vbich the legislature has confided in full measure to the Go\'.ern- menL [1079B-D, E-G; 1080B·C, H; !082Gl · _ (3) The word ''specially' signifies the investm~nt of some or all the l\
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.