STATE Vs. PHILIPOSE PHILIP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By O.P. No. 93 of 1952 accused Nos. 1 and 2 in C.C. No. 156 of 1950 of the Division First Class Magistrate's Court, Kottayam, moved this Court for a withdrawal of the said case to this Court under Art.228 of the Constitution on the ground that the case involved substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution. The prayer was allowed by Vithayathil, J. and the facts of the case and the questions that arise for consideration are set out as follows in his order dated the 4th August 1953:-

(2.) The notifications referred to in the order read as follows:-

(3.) The first contention urged on behalf of the accused is that S.3 of the Travancore Cochin Safety Measures Act, 1950, is void and inoperative for lack of the Presidential sanction insisted upon by the proviso to Art.304 (b) of the Constitution and as we are accepting the said contention it is unnecessary for us to consider the further position taken up by them before us, namely, that there has been a violation of Arts.14 and 19 as well. Art.304 occurs in Part XIII of the Constitution which consists of Arts.301 to 307 and is entitled "Trade, Commerce and Intercourse within the Territory of India." There is no doubt that this is one of the more difficult parts of the Constitution and there is considerable force in the criticism of Sir Iver Jennings: