LexT. BARAI versus HENRY AH HOE AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
•'
~-
905
-T. BARAi
V,
HENRY AH HOB AND ANOTHER
December 7, 1982
[A.P. SEN, B.S. VENltTARAMIAH AND R.B. MISRA, ff]
interpretation of Statutes-Central Act on a Jubject i'n Concurrent List
amended by State Act-State Act enhanced punishment--A later Central Amend-
ment Act with respect to the same matter reduced the punjshment-State .amendmint
if impliedly repealed-Repeal followed by fresh legislation-Section 6 of General
Clauses Act-If applicable.
For'committing an offence under section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of
Food Adulter8.tion Act, 1954, as it stood on March 1, 1972, 'the maximum punish-
ment prescribed was imprisonment for six years and fine. Section 2l of the Act
provided that such offences were triable by a Presidency Magistrate or Magistrate
'First Class. By the Prevention of Adu1~eration of Food, Drugs and Cosmetics·
(West Bengal Amendment) Act. 1973, enacted by the State Legislature of West
Bengal,· the maximum punishment for an offence under this section had been
enhanced to iolprisonment for life, as a result of which an offence committed
under the section in the State of West Bengal became exclusively triable by a
court of sessions. The Amendment Act r~ccived the assent of the President and
came into force from April 29, 1974. In 1976 Parliament amended the Food
Adulteration Act and the amendment came into force with eff'"'ct from April 1,
1976. For offences punishable under section 16(1)(a) the Amendment Act
provided for. a reduced punishment for a term of three years instead of six years
as before. By the same Amendment Act section J6A was inserted in the Act
· providing that all offences under section 16(1) shall be tried in a summary way by
a Judicial Magistrate, First Class, or by a Metropolitan Magistrate.
On September 24, I 975 the appellant lodged a complaint against the
respondent for having committed an offence punishable u·nder section l6{1)(a)
read with section 7 of the Act. On the date ·qf the commission of the alleged
offence the Jaw in force in the State of West Beiigal was the 1954 Act as amended
by the West Bengal Amendment ·Act .
..
Purporting to follow the decisio~ of a single Judge of the Calcutta High
Court in B. Manna and Ors . . v. State of West Bengal, (81 C.W.N. 1075) in which
it was held that the Central Amendment Act was not intended to be retrospective
in operation because it had not expressly repealed the West Bengal amendment
nor dealt with the Act or any of its provisions in any manner. the Magistrate
held that the case was triable by the Court 9f $essiop3,
A
B
c
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
906
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1983] J S.C.R.
DiSagreeing with the view of the single JuUge, a Divsion Bench of the High
Court held that after the Central Amendment Act came into rOrce on April 1,
1976 all proceedings pending for trial of offences punishable under' s. J6(1)(a) as
amended by tbe West Bengal Act which had not been.concluded, would cease to
be governed by the West Bengal Amendment Act and would come within the
purview of the Central. Act as amended by.the Central Amendment Act and that
therefore such offences committed prior to the amendment were triable ·in
aCcordance with the procedure under s., 16A as amended by the Central Amend-
ment Act.
On the question whether the previous operation of the repealed West
Bengal Amendment Act in respect of any liability incurred thereunder is preserved
bys. 8 of the Bengal General Clauses Act, 1899 which is in pari materia withs. 6
of',lhe General.Clauses'Act, 1897 both as to procedure for trial of such offences
and the nature of punishment liable to be imposed.
Di'smissing the appeal,
HELD : By virtue of the proviso to Art. 254 (2) of the Constitution,
Parliament may repeal or amend a repugnant State Jaw either directly or by itself
'by enacting a la\v repugnant to the State law with respect to the ~ame m8.tter.
Even though the subsequent law inade by Parliament does not expressly repeal a
State law, the State Jaw will become void under Article 254 (I) if it conflicts with
a later law made by Parliament creating repugnancy. Such repugnancy may arise
where both laws operate in the same field and the two cannot possibly stand
together: As for example, where both prescribe punishment for the same offence,·
both the·punishments differs in degree of kind .or in the procedure prescribed. In
all Such cases the law made by Parliament shall prevail over the State law undExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.