Repugnancy in punishment laws: later Central legislation displaced the Bombay enhancement and left the conviction intact.

Later Central legislation on punishment for contravention of orders under the Essential Supplies Act was treated as further legislation on the same subject and, by occupying the field, displaced the Bombay Act's enhanced penalty scheme in Bombay despite that Act's prior assent. The Court applied the repugnancy principle: where Parliament enacts a comprehensive later code prescribing graded punishments for the same offence, the earlier State law cannot continue to operate to the extent of inconsistency. The separate challenge based on exclusive Provincial List competence was not entertained because it was outside the certified question. The conviction before the Magistrate therefore remained within jurisdiction and the appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the later Central legislation governing punishment for contravention of orders under the Essential Supplies Act operated as further legislation on the same matter so as to override the Bombay Act enhancing penalties, and whether the appellant could succeed in challenging the jurisdiction of the trying Magistrate on that basis.

Analysis: The Bombay Act enhanced punishment for contravention of orders under the Essential Supplies Act and, having received the Governor-General's assent, prevailed in Bombay under the constitutional provision then in force. Parliament was nevertheless competent to enact further legislation on the same matter. The amended Central enactment of 1950 replaced the earlier punishment provision with a comprehensive code classifying offences by subject-matter and prescribing graded punishments, including a special enhanced punishment for hoarding of foodgrains. The later enactment therefore occupied the same field as the Bombay Act. The principle applied was that where later legislation covers the same subject-matter and the punishments differ in degree, the earlier law cannot stand with the later law. The attempt to raise a separate contention that the matter fell exclusively in the Provincial List was not entertained because it was not properly within the question certified.

Conclusion: The Bombay Act could not prevail against the later Central law, and the conviction by the Magistrate was within jurisdiction.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the later Central legislation displaced the Bombay enhancement of punishment, leaving the conviction undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where Parliament enacts later legislation on the same matter and comprehensively redefines the punishment for the offence, the earlier State law repugnant to that scheme is overridden under the constitutional repugnancy provision even without an express repeal.

---