ZAVERBHAI AMAIDAS versus THE STATE OF BOMBAY

Citation: [1955] 1 S.C.R. 799 · Decided: 08-10-1954 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 10 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
ZA VERBHAI AMAIDAS 
v. 
THE STATE OF BOMBAY 
[MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN C.J., MuKHERJEA, 
VIVIAN BosE, JAGANNADHADAS and 
VENKATARAMA AYYAR J J.] 
799 
""· 
Constitution of India, Art. 254(2), Government of India Act, 
1935, 
s. 
107(2)-Principle embodied 
therein-Essential 
Supplies 
(Temporary Powers) Act (XXIV of 1946) s. 7 as amended by Act Lil 
of 1950-Bombay Act XXXVI of 
1947-S.2-Subiect matter of 
legislation identical-Repugnancy-Repeal by necessary intendment. 
Article 254(2) of the Constitution is, in substance, a reproduc-
tion of s. 107(2) of the Government of India Act, 1935, the conclud-
_., 
ing portion whereof is incorporated . in a 
proviso 
with further 
additions. The principle embodied therein is 
that when there is 
legislation covering the same ground both 
by the Centre and by 
the State, both of them being competent to enact the same, the law 
of the Centre should prevail over that of the State. 
Section 7 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 
1946, was amended in 1948 and 
1949 and 
thereafter 
by 
Act 
LII of 1950. 
-. 
Held, that Act LII of 1950 is a legislation in respect of the 
same matter as Bombay Act (XXXVI of 1947) within the meaning 
of Art. 254(2) of t~e Constitution and therefore s. 2 of Bombay Act 
XXXVI of 1947 cannot 
prevail as against s. 
7 of the 
Essential 
Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act as amended by Act LII of 1950. 
It is a well-settled rule of construction that if a later statute 
again describes an offence created by a previous one and imposes a 
different punishment or varies the procedure, the earlier statute 
is repealed by the later statute. 
Attorney-Genernl 
for 
Ontario v. 
Attorney-General 
for the 
Dominion [1896] A.C. 348, Smith v. Benabo [1937] 1 K.B. 518, and 
Michell v. Brown (1 El. & EL 267, 274) referred to. 
CRIMINAL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION : 
Criminal 
Appeal No. 31 of 1953. 
Under article 132(1) of the 
Constitution of India 
from the 
Judgment and Order dated 21-1-1953 of the 
High Court of 
Judicature 
at 
Bombay m 
Criminal 
Revision Application No. 642 of 1952. 
13-88 SCindia/59. 
1954 
Oct1ber 8. 
1954 
z-bhai 
Amaidas 
v. 
The Stale of 
Bombay. 
V enkatarama 
Ayyar]. 
800 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1955] 
I. C. Dalal and P. K. Chatterjee for the appellant. 
M. C. 
Setalvad, Attorney-General of India (P. A. 
Mehta and P. G. Gokhale, with him) for the respondent. 
1954. October 8. The Judgment of the 
Court was 
delivered by 
VENKATARAMA 
AYYAR J.-This is an appeal against 
the judgment of the High Court of Bombay dismissing 
a rev1s10n petition filed 
by the appellant against his 
conviction under 
sect10n 7 of the 
Essential 
Supplies 
(Temporary Powers) Act No. XXIV of 1946. 
The charge against the appellant 
was that on 6th 
April, 1951, 
he had transported 15 maunds of juwar 
from his 
villag.: of Khanjroli to 
Mandvi 
without a 
permit, and had thereby contravened section 5(1) of 
the Bombay Food 
Grains (Regulation of Movement and 
Sale) Order, 1949. The Resident First Class Magistrate 
of Bardoli who tried the case found him 
guilty, and 
sentenced him to imprisonment till the rising of the 
Court and a fine of Rs. 500. The conviction and sentence 
were both affirmed by the Sessions Judge, Surat, on 
appeal. The appellant thereafter 
took 
up the matter 
in revision to the High Court of Bombay, and there for 
the first time, took the objection that 
the 
Resident 
First Class 
Magistrate had no jurisdiction to try the 
case, because under section 2 of 
the 
Bombay 
Act 
No. XXXVI of 1947 the offence was punishable 
with 
imprisonment, which 
might extend 
to seven 
years, 
and 
under the 
Second 
Schedule 
to the 
Criminal 
Procedure Code, it was only the Sessions 
Court that 
had jurisdiction to try such offence. The answer of the 
State to this 
contention was that subsequent to the 
enactment of the 
Bombay Act No. XXXVI of 1947, the 
Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act had under-
gone substantial alterations, 
and was finally re-cast 
by 
the 
Central 
Act No. LU of 1950 ; that the effect of 
these amendments was 
that Act No. XXXVI of 1947 
had become inoperative, that the governing Act was 
Act No. LII of 
1950, 
and that as 
under that Act 
the maximum sentence for the offence in question was 
three years, the 
Resident First Class 
Magistrate had 
jurisdiction over the offence. 
+ 
-
• 
-+ 
y 
-
-
-
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
801 
The revision petition was heard by a Bench consisting
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.