1960 (8) TMI 92 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court sets aside judgment, restores acquittal order, rules State not bound by penal provisions

Director of Rationing and Distribution Versus The Corporation of Calcutta

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the Magistrate's order of acquittal. The Court held that the ... - Issues Involved:1. Applicability of Section 386 of the Calcutta Municipal Act to the Government.2. Whether the Government is bound by statutes unless expressly exempted.3. Interpretation of statutes in relation to the Government's liability.4. Continuation of common law principles post-Constitution.5. Sovereignty and royal prerogative in a republican form of government.6. Penal provisions applicability to the State.Issue-Wise Analysis:1. Applicability of Section 386 of the Calcutta Municipal Act to the Government:The appeal was directed against the High Court's judgment which set aside an acquittal order. The Corporation of Calcutta prosecuted the Director of Rationing and Distribution for using premises without a license under Section 386 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923. The trial Magistrate acquitted the accused, relying on a precedent that the Act did not bind the Government. The High Court, however, held that the Government was bound by the statute unless expressly exempted.2. Whether the Government is bound by statutes unless expressly exempted:The High Court examined the legal position afresh and concluded that the Indian Legislature assumed the Government would be bound unless excluded expressly or by necessary implication. The High Court favored the view that the Government was bound by statutes unless explicitly exempted, contrary to the Privy Council's earlier decision.3. Interpretation of statutes in relation to the Government's liability:The Supreme Court had to decide whether the penal section applied to the Government. It was contended that the provisions neither by express terms nor by necessary implication were meant to apply to the Government. The decision of the Privy Council was considered still good law, suggesting that the Government was not bound by statutes unless expressly named or necessarily implied.4. Continuation of common law principles post-Constitution:The Supreme Court discussed whether the common law principle that the Crown is not bound by statutes unless expressly named continued post-Constitution. It was argued that the rule of interpretation that the State is not bound by a statute unless expressly provided or implied was still valid under Article 372 of the Constitution.5. Sovereignty and royal prerogative in a republican form of government:The contention was that the republican form of government negated the existence of royal prerogatives. The Supreme Court noted that the rule of immunity is based on public policy and is not peculiar to a monarchical form of government. The Court cited U.S. cases to illustrate that the rule is a matter of statutory construction and public policy rather than royal prerogative.6. Penal provisions applicability to the State:The Supreme Court held that penal provisions do not apply to the Government unless expressly stated. The prosecution against the State was deemed misconceived as the State cannot be a party to committing a crime. The Court concluded that the State was not bound by the penal section of the statute in question.Separate Judgments:Sarkar, J.:Sarkar, J. agreed with the acquittal, emphasizing that the rule of construction exempting the Crown from statutes applied to India. He argued that the Government's function of storing rice for rationing was a governmental duty, thus exempt from the Act.Wanchoo, J.:Wanchooo, J. concurred with the conclusion but provided different reasoning. He argued that the rule of construction based on royal prerogative no longer applied post-republic. He emphasized that the State should be bound by statutes unless expressly exempted. However, he agreed that penal provisions imposing fines could not apply to the State as it would result in the State paying fines to itself.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the Magistrate's order of acquittal, concluding that the Government was not bound by the penal provisions of the Calcutta Municipal Act.