1954 (10) TMI 40 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court affirms jurisdiction under Essential Supplies Act, precedence of Central legislation over State laws

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, confirming the Resident First Class Magistrate's jurisdiction under the amended Essential Supplies ... Whether the amendments made to the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act by the Central Legislature in 1948, 1949 and 1950 are 'furthers legislation' falling within section 107(2) of the Government of India Act or 'law with respect to the same matter' falling within article 254(2)? Held that:- We are entirely in agreement with the opinion of Chagla C.J. and Chainani J. that Act No. LII of 1950 is a legislation in respect of the same matter as Act No. XXXVI of 1947. Appeal dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the Resident First Class Magistrate.2. Repugnancy between Central and State legislation.3. Applicability of Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India.4. Interpretation of amendments to the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of the Resident First Class Magistrate:The appellant was convicted under section 7 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, for transporting 15 maunds of juwar without a permit. The Resident First Class Magistrate sentenced him to imprisonment and a fine. The appellant argued that the Magistrate lacked jurisdiction, as the offence was punishable with up to seven years of imprisonment under section 2 of the Bombay Act No. XXXVI of 1947, and therefore, only the Sessions Court had jurisdiction. The State contended that subsequent amendments to the Essential Supplies Act rendered the Bombay Act inoperative, thus validating the Magistrate's jurisdiction.2. Repugnancy between Central and State legislation:The High Court of Bombay, upon hearing the revision petition, was divided in opinion. Bavdekar J. believed that the amendments to the Essential Supplies Act did not affect the Bombay Act No. XXXVI of 1947. In contrast, Chainani J. held that the Central legislation (Act No. LII of 1950) prevailed over the State legislation due to repugnancy. Chagla C.J. agreed with Chainani J., citing Article 254(2) of the Constitution, which states that Central legislation prevails over conflicting State legislation.3. Applicability of Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India:The Supreme Court examined whether the amendments to the Essential Supplies Act constituted 'further legislation' under section 107(2) of the Government of India Act or 'law with respect to the same matter' under Article 254(2) of the Constitution. The Court concluded that the amendments in 1948, 1949, and 1950 were indeed further legislation on the same subject matter, thus rendering the Bombay Act No. XXXVI of 1947 inoperative.4. Interpretation of amendments to the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act:The Court analyzed the chronological amendments to the Essential Supplies Act. The 1948 and 1949 amendments modified the penalties and forfeiture provisions. The 1950 amendment (Act No. LII of 1950) introduced a comprehensive code for punishment, categorizing offences based on commodities and specifying penalties. The Court found that the subject of enhanced punishment under the Bombay Act was included in the 1950 amendment, particularly concerning hoarding of foodgrains. Thus, the Central legislation covered the same ground as the State legislation, leading to the conclusion that the latter was superseded.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, confirming that the Resident First Class Magistrate had jurisdiction to try the case under the amended Essential Supplies Act. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the precedence of Central legislation over conflicting State laws as per Article 254(2) of the Constitution. The judgment emphasized that when the subject matter of later Central legislation is identical to earlier State legislation, the former prevails, rendering the latter inoperative.