Statutes and State liability: general laws bind government only by express words or necessary implication.

A statute of general application does not bind the State unless legislative intention to do so is shown by express words or necessary implication. The common law rule was treated as a rule of construction continuing under the constitutional expression "laws in force," rather than as a monarchic prerogative. Applying that principle, the penal provisions of the Calcutta Municipal Act were not read as binding the Government, because the Act contained no express words and no necessary implication requiring State liability; prosecution on that basis could not be sustained. The note identifies this as the governing ratio on statutory application to the Government.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the State is bound by a statute only if it is named expressly or bound by necessary implication. (ii) Whether the penal provisions of the Calcutta Municipal Act applied to the Government so as to sustain the prosecution.

Issue (i): Whether the State is bound by a statute only if it is named expressly or bound by necessary implication.

Analysis: The governing rule was treated as a rule of construction rather than a personal prerogative dependent on monarchy. The Court held that the common law principle continued after the Constitution through the expression "laws in force" and the constitutional scheme did not abrogate it. Statutes of general application do not bind the Government unless the legislative intention to do so appears either from express words or by necessary implication.

Conclusion: The State is not bound unless it is expressly named or bound by necessary implication.

Issue (ii): Whether the penal provisions of the Calcutta Municipal Act applied to the Government so as to sustain the prosecution.

Analysis: The relevant provisions contained no express words binding the Government, and no necessary implication arose from the scheme of the Act. The section relied on was a penal provision, and the prosecution sought to proceed against the Government through an officer for conduct done in discharge of governmental duties. The statutory context did not show that excluding the Government would defeat the Act's efficacy.

Conclusion: The penal provisions did not apply to the Government and the prosecution could not be maintained.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the High Court's order was set aside, and the acquittal was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: A statute of general application does not bind the State unless the legislature has clearly manifested that intention by express words or by necessary implication.

---