Sugarcane price regulation and timely payment fall within essential commodities control, with police investigation permitted for a cognizable complaint.

Regulation of sugarcane payment under the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1955 was treated as falling within the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 because sugarcane was regarded as a food-crop and the statutory power extended to control of production, supply, distribution, price, and the time for payment. The note also explains that a pre-Constitution Bihar law did not prevail against the later control order to the extent of inconsistency, as Article 372 did not preserve it from competent alteration. It further states that a complaint alleging an offence punishable with imprisonment up to three years disclosed a cognizable offence, making police investigation permissible and rendering the objection on cognizance premature.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1955, requiring payment for sugarcane within the prescribed time, was validly made under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and within the legislative competence of Parliament. (ii) Whether the Bihar Sugar Factories Control Act, 1937 could override the later control order in view of Article 372 of the Constitution of India. (iii) Whether the complaint disclosed a cognizable offence so as to justify police investigation.

Issue (i): Whether sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1955, requiring payment for sugarcane within the prescribed time, was validly made under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and within the legislative competence of Parliament.

Analysis: Sugarcane was treated as a food-crop within the statutory scheme. The Essential Commodities Act, 1955 empowered the Central Government to regulate production, supply, distribution, and price of essential commodities, including foodstuffs. The power under Section 3 extended to bringing food-crops under cultivation and controlling the price at which such commodities may be bought or sold. On that basis, regulation of sugarcane and the time for payment of its price was held to fall within the statutory authority, and Parliament was competent to enact the law under the relevant field of legislative power over foodstuffs.

Conclusion: The control order was valid and the challenge to legislative competence failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the Bihar Sugar Factories Control Act, 1937 could override the later control order in view of Article 372 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The earlier Bihar enactment was a pre-Constitution law and continued only until altered, repealed, or amended by a competent authority. The control order specifically required payment within 14 days unless otherwise agreed in writing, and that specific mandate was treated as altering the inconsistent earlier law to the extent of conflict. Article 372 did not protect the earlier law against such later competent alteration.

Conclusion: The earlier State law did not prevail against the control order.

Issue (iii): Whether the complaint disclosed a cognizable offence so as to justify police investigation.

Analysis: The offence complained of was punishable with imprisonment up to three years and therefore fell within the Second Schedule of the Code of Criminal Procedure as a cognizable offence. The stage of cognizance by a court had not yet been reached, so the objection under Section 11 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 was premature.

Conclusion: Police investigation was permissible.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the investigation and to the validity of the impugned control requirement failed in all material respects, and the appeal was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Regulation of the price and timely payment for sugarcane falls within the statutory power to control essential commodities and food-crops, and police may investigate a complaint disclosing a cognizable offence under that scheme.

---