MAHIPATRAM CHUNILAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
LAWS(BOM)-1954-1-5
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on January 08,1954

MAHIPATRAM CHUNILAL Appellant
VERSUS
STATE Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

BALKRISHNA ANANT V. EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)ON 26-4-1952, a motor lorry was stopped at about 5 a. m. on Maroshi Road near Aarey Milk Colony by police-officers who were on patrol duty. On a search being made 53 cases containing two tins of 56 Ibs. each of skimmed milk powder were found inside the lorry. As there was no permit to cover the import of the skimmed milk powder into Greater Bombay, the persons in the lorry (accused Nos. 1 to 4) as well as one Mahipatram (accused No. 5,) who had imported the skimmed milk powder were charged under Sections 7 and 8 of the Essential supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, read with Government of India Notification No. P30-14/51-E. P. , dated April 19, 1952, the relevant portions of which were as follows:in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946 (24 of 1946), the Central Government hereby makes the following order. . . .
2. . . (b) Controlled Area means any of the following areas, namely- (i) Greater Bombay. . . . (d) Export means to take out of a controlled area by road, rail, water or air. . . . 3. Prohibition against export, import, sale or obtaining of skim milk powder.-Except under and in accordance with the conditions of a permit issued by an authorised officer no person shall- (i) export or import or cause to be exported or imported skim milk powder, or (ii) sell, supply or distribute or cause to be sold, supplied or distributed skim milk powder in any controlled area; or (iii) acquire or cause to be acquired or attempt to acquire skim milk powder in any controlled area, or (iv) transport in transit any skim milk powder through the limits of any controlled area.

(2.)THE trying Magistrate acquitted accused Nos. 1 to 4 and convicted accused No. 5 and sentenced him to one day's simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,500, rejecting his contention that the Government of Bombay were aware and the Central Government were also aware of this fact that if the order was made applicable to Bombay, notice should be given in Bombay, on the ground that according to Section 3, it was not necessary for the Central Government to instruct the Bombay Government nor incumbent on the State to republish it in their Gazette or in the papers and if one were to consider that this notification was nothing but an extension of a previous notification, then it would be necessary for any person who desired to import skimmed milk powder at the expiry of the notification of the 24th January 1952, to make diligent inquires before importing such article. There was also a direction to confiscate the goods seized by the police. Bavdekar, J.
(3.)(HIS Lordship, after dealing with points not material to the report, proceeded ). It is said, however, that even upon the footing that the Order is a valid Order, the appellant in this case has not committed any offence, inasmuch as the Order in this case being a statutory order came into force only upon its publication. The statute authorises the publication of the orders issued thereunder in the Official Gazette, inasmuch as the power which was conferred to issue the Order was conferred upon the Central Government, this meant a Gazette of India under the General Clauses Act, The Order in this case bears the date 19-4-1952; but it is not in dispute that it appeared in an issue in the Gazette of India bearing date 21-4-1952. There is no evidence, however, as to the date upon which this Gazette was published, and it is con-tended that the appellant could not be convicted of an offence which he appears to have committed, if at all, on 26-4-1952, because it has not been shown that the copies of the Gazette of India containing the Order had become available in Bombay before the goods of the appellant were seized.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.