THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus NATH MAL AND MITHA MAL

Citation: [1954] 1 S.C.R. 982 · Decided: 12-03-1954 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

1954 
Suleman Issa 
v. 
The Stak of 
Bombay. 
Ghulam Hasan J, 
1954 
March 12 
982 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1954} 
inappropriate in a case where the accused is prosecuted 
for an offence punishable with a maximum sentence of 
3 months and a fine of Rs. 
100. 
It was 
certainly 
open to the court to order the property to be delivered 
to the person claiming to be entitled to its possession. 
Here the gold was found from the possession of the 
appellant, and the court was not called upon 
to con-
sider any rival claims about its possession. Admittedly 
there was no evidence to prove that it was stolen, or 
that 
it was 
fraudulently obtained 
and 
all that was 
found was that there was reason to believe that it was 
stolen or fraudulently obtained and that the appellant 
failed to account 
for its possession to 
the satisfaction 
of 
the court. 
The High Court thought that the gold 
was smuggled from Africa into India but assuming this 
to be so its confiscation 
under section 517 upon the 
existence of a mere belief required to sustain a convic-
tion 
under 
section 
61E 
was palpably harsh and 
unreasonable. 
We hold, therefore, 
that the order of 
confiscation of gold cannot be supported. 
We according! y set aside the order of confiscation 
and direct that the gold seized from the appellant's 
possession shall be restored to him. 
Appeal allowed. 
Agent for the respondent : R. H. Dhebar. 
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
v. 
NATH MAL AND MITHA MAL. 
lMam CHAND MAHAJAN. C. J., MUKHERJEA, S. R. DAs, 
VIVIAN BosE and GHuLAM HASAN JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 
arts. 19(1)(1) and 31(2)-Raiasthan 
Foodgrains Control Order, 1949, cl. 25-Whether ultra vires th< 
Constitution. 
Held, that the 
first 
portion of cl. 25 of the Rajasthan 
Foodgrains Control Order, 1949, relating to the freezing of stocks 
of foodgrains is not void under art. 19(l)(f) of the Constitution 
because such freezing of stocks of foodgrains is reasonably related 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
983 
to the object which the Act was intended to achieve, nan1ely _to 
secure the equitable distribution and availability at fair prices and 
to regulate transport, distribution, disposal and acquisition of 
an 
.essential commodity such as foodgrains. 
Held, that the last portion of cl. 25 to the effect that "such 
stocks shall also be liable to be requisitioned or dispos~d of under 
orders of the said authority at the 
rate fixed 
for purposes of 
GoYernment procurement", is void both under art. 19(1)(f) and 
art. 31(2) of the Constitution:-
(i) because 
the 
clause 
places 
an 
unreasonable 
restriction 
upon the carrying on of trade or business and is thus an infringe-
ment of the respondents' right under art. 19(1)(f) of the Consti-
tution ; 
(ii) because the clause by vesting the power in the authority 
to acquire the stocks at any price fails to fix the an1ount of co1n-
pensation or specify the principles on which it is to be determined 
and leaves it entirely to the discretion of the executive authority 
to fix any compensation it likes and is thus hit by art. 31(2) of the 
Constitution. 
CIVIL APPELLATE 
TuRISDICTION : 
Civil Appeal No. 
136 of 1952. 
Appeal under articles 132 ( 1) 
and 
133 (I) ( c) of the 
Constitution of India from 
the Judgment and Order 
dated the 19th October, 1951, of the High Court of 
Judicature for 
Rajasthan at fodhpur in D. B. Miscella-
neous Writ Petition No. 3/1951. 
K. S. Haje/a, Advocate-General of Rajasthan, for the 
appellant. 
K. N. Aggart11al an<l P. C. Agarwal for the respond-
ents. 
M. C. Setalvad, Attornev-General for 
India (Porus 
A. Mehta, with him) for the intervener (the Union of 
India). 
1954. 
March 12. 
The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
GHuLAM HASAN J.-The question 
involved 
in this 
appeal relates to the constitutional validity of clause 25 
of 
the 
Rajasthan 
Foodgrains Control Order, 1949, 
hereinafter called the Control Order. and arises in the 
following circumstances:-
The respondents, who are grain merchants at · Rani-
wara-
in 
Jodhpur 
Division, Rajasthan State, hdd 
1954 
The State of 
Rajas than 
v. 
Nath Mal and 
Mitha Mal. 
1954 
Th< Sta11 of 
RajasthtJ.n 
v. 
Nath Mal and -
Muha Mal. 
Ghulam Hasan J. 
984 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1954] 
licences for dealing in foodgrains. 
They held consider-
able 
stocks of bajra in the ordinary course of business 
but on October 7, 1950, their stocks were frozen by the 
Deputy Commissioner, Civil Supplies, Jodhpur, through 
the Sub-Divisional Officer. 

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