MARTAND BALWANT RISALDAR Vs. NATHALAL BRIDICHAND
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
MARTAND BALWANT RISALDAR
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) ONE of the questions in this criminal appeal is whether the rules made under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by the Government of Gujarat are made after previous publication as required by Section 24 of the said Act. The previous publication, if any, was not made by the Gujarat Government, bat by the Bombay Government in 1959. The question is whether the previous publication by the Bombay Government would be an act of the Gujarat Government under the law and in particular under the Bombay Reorganization Act, 1960. Clause (d) of Section 2 of the Bombay Reorganization Act reads as under: 'law' includes any enactment ordinance, regulation, order, bye-law, rule, scheme, notification or other instrument having, immediately before the appointed day, the force of law in the whole or in any part of the Stats of Bombay; Section 88 of the said Act reads as follows:
88. Power to adapt laws.- For the purpose of facilitating the application in relation to the State of Maharashtra or Gujarat of any law made before the appointed day, the appropriate Government may before the expiration of one year from that day, by order, make such adaptations and modifications of the law, whether by way of repeal or amendment) as may be necessary or expedient, and thereupon every such law shall have effect subject to the adaptations and modifications be made until altered, repealed or amended by a competent Legislature or other competent authority. Section 88, relates to power to adapt laws made before the appointed day, the contention that the rules made after previous publication by the Bombay Government would be a law cannot be accepted. It is contended that the previous publication amounts to a notification under Clause (d) of Section 2 of the Bombay Reorganization Act. Even if it is so, it would be doubtful whether that can be treated as law. But even if it can be, the words "having immediately before the appointed day, the force of law in the whole or in any part of the State of Bombay" which are found in Clause (d) of Section 2 of the Bombay Reorganization Act cannot be applied to the previous publication of the rules which are not actually made. If the rules are actually made in 1959, then the question of previous publication would itself be absent. In my opinion, the words "having immediately before the appointed day the force of law in the whole or in any part of the State of Bombay" qualifies the words "any enactment, ordinance, regulation, order, bye-law, rule, scheme, notification or other instrument" referred to earlier in the said Clause (d ). Clause (d) cannot obviously apply to any enactment, ordinance, regulation, order, bye-law, rule, scheme etc. , in the whole world. Whether it is a rule or scheme or notification, it must have before the appointed day the force of law in the whole or in any part of the State of Bombay before Clause (d) can be applied. The contrary contention of the learned Counsel is rejected, and therefore the view taken by the lower Court is quite correct, and the appeal against the acquittal is dismissed. ;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.