THE STATE OF BOMBAY versus SALAT PRAGJI KARAMSI

Citation: [1957] 1 S.C.R. 745 · Decided: 07-03-1957 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: NATWARLAL HARILAL BHAGWATI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
745 
possession and that a mandamus will go only on the 
19.57 
supposition that there is nobody holding the office in 
Sohan Lal 
question. 
In R. v. Chester Corporation(') it was held ... ._ " . v. if •-J· 
h 
• • 
• fl "bl 
1 
f 1 
h 
h 
, ne vnwn o ""''o 
t at It IS an m exi e ru e o aw t at w ere a person 
-
has been de facto elected to a corporate office, and has 
Imam]. 
accepted and acted in the office, the validity of the 
election and the title to the office can only be tried by 
proceeding on a quo warranto information. 
A mandamus 
will not lie unless the election can be shown to 
be 
merely colourable. We cannot see why in principle 
there should be a distinction inade between such a 
case and the case of a person, who has, apparently, 
entered into bona fide possession of a property without 
knowledge that any person had been illegally evicted 
therefrom. 
In our opinion, the High Court erred in allowing. the 
application of Jagan Nath filed under Art. 226 of the 
Constitution and making the order it did. The appeal 
is accordingly allowed and the order of the High Court 
is set aside. 
In the circumstances of the present case, 
however, we are of the opinion that each party should 
bear his own costs in this Court and in the High Court. 
Appeal allowed. 
THE STATE OF BOMBAY 
v. 
SALAT PRAGJI KARAMSI 
(BHAGWATI, ]AGANNADHADAS, 
jAFER IMAM, 
GOVINDA MENON and ]. L. KAPUR JJ.) 
Application ~f Laws-Law of one St11te made 
applicable 
t1 
another State-When comes into force-Adaptations-Words 
"shall 
be construed as"-Meaning ef-Br•mbay Prevention ef 
Gambling 
Act (Born. IV of 1887), s. I-Kutch (Application of Laws) 
Order, 
1949· 
By cl. 3 of the Kutch (Application of Laws) Order, 1949 the 
Bom?ay Prevention of Gambling Act (Born. IV of 1887) was ~ade 
applicable to Kutch. 
Clause 4 of the Order provided that the 
Acts applied to Kutch by the Order "shall be construed" as if 
(1) [1855] 25 L.J. Q. B. 6J (Regina v. Chester, Mayor, etc.) 
1957 
Marth 1. 
1957 
The State of 
B<tmbqy 
v. 
Sa/at Prag;i 
Karam.si 
Kaµ,r J. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1957] 
references therein to the <:l.uthorities and territories \Vere references 
to the authorities and territories of 
Kutch as set out in that 
clause. 'I'he \Vord~ "shall be construed as" mean "shall be read 
as" and consequently wherever in the Bombay Act the \YOrds 
"Provincial Government" or "Govern1nent" are used, 
they 
have to be r:':ad as "Chief Con1missioner of f(utch", and 
:he 
words "Province or the Presidency of Bombay" <.:.s "Kutch 
or 
any part thereof". So understood, S. 
I of the Bombay Act 
:i.s 
~pplied to J(utch provided that all or any of thC" provisions of 
thv.t .<\ct n1ay be extended frorn time to time by the Chief Co1nrnis-
sioncr of Kutch by ::in order published in the Official Gazette to 
any local area in Kutch or any part thereof. 
'fhc. contenti11a 
that the Bombay Act had been validly exrend<:d to and ".<!." in 
force in the 'vhole of Kutch because of the J(utch (A.pplication of 
Lavvs) Order, r949, is not sound. The true position is that the 
whole of the Act in::luding amended s. 
I beca1ne applicable to 
Kutch and, therefcJre, a notirication \Vas nl'.:'ccssary before it could 
be br0ught into force in any part of l(utch. 1'hc Chief (~ornn1is
sioner h:sued a notification' on November 28, 1950, 
brin£;i~1~~ all 
the provisi::>ns of the Bombay Act into force throughout the \\"h<)le 
of Kutch \Vi th imn1ediatc effect. The Chief Commissioner of Kutch 
under s. I of the Bo1nba)r Act, h;,d p0\vers to issue the notifi.:,\-
tion making that Act operative in Kutch or in any part of Ku~ch 
and those po'"''ers \Vere not affectexl by r\rt. 
239 of the Con~~titu
tion. 
The notification \\'as valid and the }\ct came into force 
in th~ parts of the 
State to \vhich the notification 
made 
it 
applicable. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
Appeal No. 33 of 1955. 
Criminal 
Appeal under Articles 132(1) and 134(1)(c) of the 
Constitution of India from the Judgment and Order 
dated June 30, 1954, of the Court of Judicial Commis-
sioner, Kutch in Criminal Revision Application No. 13 
of 1952. 
Porus A. Mehta and R. H. Dhebar, for the appellant. 
H. ]. Umrigar, for the respondent. 
1957. March 7. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
KAPUR J.-Two important questions arise for deci-
sion in this case of a small magnitude and the State 
has filed this appeal not for the purpose of obtaining 
a conviction but because o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.