High Court bail jurisdiction remains available despite a Special Tribunal, unless excluded expressly or by necessary implication.

The Price Marking and Display Order, 1975 was not invalid for want of prior Central Government concurrence because it required dealers to display prices fixed by themselves and did not itself control statutory prices or rates. Rule 184(b) special bail restrictions did not apply to a breach of that Order, as the notification covered Rule 114 and a contravention of an order made under the rule was not the same as contravention of the rule itself. The High Court's powers under Sections 438 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 remained available, since the constitution of a Special Tribunal to try offences did not expressly or by necessary implication exclude independent bail jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Himachal Pradesh Commodities Price Marking and Display Order, 1975 was invalid for want of prior concurrence of the Central Government under Rule 114(4) of the Defence and Internal Security of India Rules, 1971; (ii) whether Rule 184 of the Defence and Internal Security of India Rules, 1971 applied to a contravention of the Price Marking and Display Order; and (iii) whether the High Court retained jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to grant bail notwithstanding the constitution of a Special Tribunal under the Defence and Internal Security of India Act, 1971.

Issue (i): Whether the Himachal Pradesh Commodities Price Marking and Display Order, 1975 was invalid for want of prior concurrence of the Central Government under Rule 114(4) of the Defence and Internal Security of India Rules, 1971.

Analysis: Rule 114(4) required prior concurrence only for an order regulating the movement or transport of foodstuffs, or for controlling the prices or rates at which such foodstuffs may be bought or sold. The Order in question required display or marking of prices fixed by the dealer or manufacturer and did not itself fix controlled prices or rates by governmental or statutory authority. Since it did not amount to an order controlling prices or rates within the meaning of the rule, the concurrence requirement was not attracted.

Conclusion: The Price Marking and Display Order, 1975 was not invalid and was not ultra vires for want of prior concurrence.

Issue (ii): Whether Rule 184 of the Defence and Internal Security of India Rules, 1971 applied to a contravention of the Price Marking and Display Order.

Analysis: Rule 184(b) applied only where the contravention was of a rule or order specifically notified for that purpose. The notification under Rule 184(b) specified Rule 114, but not the Price Marking and Display Order. The scheme of the Act and Rules distinguished between contravention of a rule and contravention of an order made under a rule. A breach of an order made under Rule 114 could not be equated with a breach of Rule 114 itself. Accordingly, the special bail restriction in Rule 184(b) was not attracted.

Conclusion: Rule 184(b) did not apply to contraventions of the Price Marking and Display Order.

Issue (iii): Whether the High Court retained jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to grant bail notwithstanding the constitution of a Special Tribunal under the Defence and Internal Security of India Act, 1971.

Analysis: The power to grant bail is distinct from the power to try the offence and does not interfere with the conduct of the trial; it merely changes the custody of the accused. The High Court's powers under Sections 438 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are special and independent powers. Nothing in the Defence and Internal Security of India Act, 1971 or the Rules expressly or by necessary implication excluded those powers, and the constitution of a Special Tribunal to try offences did not oust the High Court's statutory bail jurisdiction. General provisions preserving ordinary court jurisdiction also supported this view.

Conclusion: The High Court continued to have power under Sections 438 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to grant bail.

Final Conclusion: The challenges to the order and to the High Court's bail jurisdiction failed in substance, and the petitioners were entitled to seek bail from the High Court under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Ratio Decidendi: A special tribunal created to try offences does not, by itself, exclude the High Court's independent statutory jurisdiction to grant bail unless such exclusion is expressly provided or necessarily implied; likewise, a regulation empowering the Government to make orders does not make every order issued under it equivalent to the rule itself for the purpose of a special bail restriction.

---