1951 (3) TMI 23 - SC - Indian Laws

Court upholds government's sugar seizure order under Essential Supplies Act, dismisses appeal.

SANTOSH KUMAR JAIN Versus THE STATE. UNION OF INDIA

The court upheld the legality of the government's order directing the seizure of sugar under the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946. It ... - Issues Involved:1. Legality of the Government's order dated 5th December 1947.2. Interpretation of Section 3 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946.3. Validity of the seizure order under Section 3(2)(j) of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946.4. Whether obstruction of the execution of the order constitutes an offence under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the Government's order dated 5th December 1947:The appellant, General Manager of the Jagdishpur Zamindary Company, was prosecuted for obstructing officials in executing an order dated 5th December 1947, which directed the seizure of 5,000 maunds of sugar. The appellant contended that the order was illegal and void, arguing that the government lacked the authority under Section 3 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, to issue such an order. The court rejected this contention, holding that the order was valid and within the powers conferred by the Act.2. Interpretation of Section 3 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946:The appellant argued that Section 3(1) of the Act only allowed for general rules or regulations and did not authorize ad hoc or special orders for specific individuals or entities. The court disagreed, stating that the term 'notified order' is broad enough to include both general and special orders. The court emphasized that the power to regulate or prohibit production, distribution, and supply includes issuing specific directions to particular producers or dealers.3. Validity of the seizure order under Section 3(2)(j) of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946:The appellant argued that the seizure order was invalid because it did not meet the conditions specified in Section 3(2)(j), which requires a belief that a contravention of the order is about to occur. The court held that Section 3(2) is illustrative and not restrictive, meaning that the power to seize is inherent in Section 3(1). Therefore, the seizure order was valid even if the specific conditions of Section 3(2)(j) were not met.4. Whether obstruction of the execution of the order constitutes an offence under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code:The appellant contended that since the order was illegal, obstructing its execution could not constitute an offence under Section 186 of the IPC. The court did not find it necessary to decide whether the act obstructed must be lawful for an offence under Section 186 to occur. Instead, it held that the seizure order was lawful, making the appellant's obstruction an offence under Section 186, even under the stricter interpretation of the provision by the Calcutta High Court.The court's decision was supported by a precedent from the Privy Council in Sibnath Banerjee's case, which clarified that illustrative provisions in a statute do not restrict the general powers conferred by the main section.Conclusion:The appeal was dismissed, affirming the conviction and sentence of the appellant for obstructing public officials in the execution of a lawful order. The appellant was ordered to surrender, and his bail bond was canceled.