THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus VISHNU RAMCHANDRA

Citation: [1961] 2 S.C.R. 26 · Decided: 18-10-1960 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

26 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1961] 
r960 
From the contents of this invoice it would be seen 
-
that the appellant has charged a price inclusive of 
M1/.'-dT•,•gabLh•,dd'.a the railway freight and would therefore be outside the 
""'"". 
f 
(1)() 
h'h 
. 
h. 
d 
v. 
terms o r. 5 
g w 1c 
reqmres t at m or er to 
The Commercial enaple a dealer to claim the deduction it should be 
r. .. Officer, 
charged for separately and not included in the price 
Kurnool 
of goods sold. The conditions of the rule not having 
been complied with, the appe. Hant was not entitled to 
·Ayyangar ]. 
the deductio.n in respect of freight. 
1960 
October :i8. 
, 
The result therefore is that the appeal is allowed in 
part and 'the order of the High Court in so far as it 
denied to the appellant the benefit of the deduction in 
the turnpver provided by r. 18(2) of the Turnover and 
Assessment Rules is set aside. 
In view of the appellant having succeeded only in 
part, there will be no order as to costs in this appeal. 
Appeal allowed in part. 
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
v. 
VISHNU RAMCHANDRA 
(M. HIDAYATULLAH and J. c. SHAH, JJ.) 
Externment-Order, if can relate to antecedents of convicted 
offenders-Statute, if prospective or retrospective-Bombay Police 
Act, r95r (n of r95r), ss. SJ(I), r4z-Indian Penal Code, ss. II4, 
380, 4rr. 
· On November 16, 1949, the respondent was convicted under 
ss. 380 and II4 of the Indian Penal Code. On October 15, 1957• 
the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Bombay, acting under s. 57(1) 
of -the Bombay Police Act passed an order externing him. from 
the limits of Greater Bombay. Later he was prosecuted and 
convicted under . s. 142 of the Bombay Police Act by the 
Presidency Magistrate for returning to the area from which he 
was externed. On an application for revision the High Court 
acquitted the respondent upholding his contention that s. 57 of the 
Bombay Police Act was not retrospective and was not applicable 
unless the conyiction on which the externment was based took 
place after the Act came into force. On appeal by the appellant 
with the special leave of this Court it was 
· 
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
27 
Held, that though statutes must ordinarily be interpreted 
1960 
. prospectively unless the langua~e ~ak~s them retrospective, 
either e,xpressly or by necessary 1mphcahon, and penal statutes 
Thi s1at1 of 
creating new offences are always prospective, penal statutes 
Maharashtra. 
creating disabilities though ordinarily interpreted prospectively 
v. 
are sometimes. interpreted retrospectively when the intention 
Vishnu 
is not to punish but to protect the public from undesirable 
Ramehandra 
persons whose past conduct is made the basis of future action. 
Mid.land Ry. Co. v. Pye, IO C.B. (N.S.) I79. Re:x v. Birth-
whistle, (188g) 58 L.J. (N.S.) M.C. 158, Queen v. Vine, [1875] IO 
Q.B. 195, E:x parte Pratt, [1884] 12 Q.B. 334, Bourke v. Nutt, 
[1898] l Q.B. 725, Ganesan v. A.K. Joscelyne, A.I.R. 1957 Cal. 33, 
Taher Saifuddi11 v. Tyebbhai Moosaji, A.LR. 1953 Born. 183, Tlte 
Queen v. Inhabitants of St. Mary Whitechapel, [1t!48] 12 Q.B. 120 
(E) : u6 E.R. Su and Re:x v. Austin, [1913] l K.B. 551, consi-
dered and applied. 
Section 57 of the Bombay Police Act did not create a new 
offence but was designed to protect the public from the activi-
ties of undesirable persons convicted of particular offences and 
enabled the authorities .to take note of their activities in order 
to put them outside the areas of their activities for preventing 
any repetition of such activities in the future. 
The verb "has been" as used in s. 57 meant "shall have 
been". Legislation which takes note of a convicted offender's 
antecedents for restraining him from his acts cannot be said to 
be applied retrospectively as long as the action taken against 
him is after the Act comes into force. The Act in question was 
thus not applied retrospectively but prospectively. 
An externment order must be bona fide and must relate to a 
conviction which is sufficiently proximate in time. 
CRIMINAL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION: 
Criminal 
Appeal No. 78 of 1959. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and 
order dated November 25, 1958, of the former Bombay 
High Court in Criminal Revision Application No. 1393 
of 1958 a.rising out of the judgment and order dated 
September 18, 1958, of the Presidency Magistrate II 
Class, Ma.za.gaon a.t Bombay in Case No. 1101/P of 
1958. 
R. H. Dhebar, for the appellant. 
The respondent did not ap

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