TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the requirement of laying the order before both Houses of Parliament under Section 3(6) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 was a condition precedent to the validity of the order and whether the Central Government's opinion under Section 3 had to be separately proved. (ii) Whether conviction could be sustained where the accused were charged under the Rajasthan Foodgrains (Restrictions on Border Movement) Order, 1959, but the proved facts attracted the Inter-Zonal Wheat and Wheat Products (Movement Control) Order, 1964.
Issue (i): Whether the requirement of laying the order before both Houses of Parliament under Section 3(6) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 was a condition precedent to the validity of the order and whether the Central Government's opinion under Section 3 had to be separately proved.
Analysis: The laying requirement was held to be subsequent to the making of the order and not a condition precedent to its coming into force. The provision fixed no period for laying and did not, by its language, make prior proof of laying essential to validity. The Court also applied a presumption that a competent authority acts lawfully and that the requisite governmental opinion is formed before issuing an order under Section 3, unless the contrary is shown. No material was produced to rebut either presumption.
Conclusion: The order was not invalid for want of proof of laying before Parliament, and the formation of the Central Government's opinion was presumed.
Issue (ii): Whether conviction could be sustained where the accused were charged under the Rajasthan Foodgrains (Restrictions on Border Movement) Order, 1959, but the proved facts attracted the Inter-Zonal Wheat and Wheat Products (Movement Control) Order, 1964.
Analysis: The proved facts showed movement of wheat within the zonal border area without a permit, which fell within Clauses 3 and 4 of the Inter-Zonal Wheat and Wheat Products (Movement Control) Order, 1964. The mention of the wrong control order in the charge did not prejudice the accused because the factual ingredients of the offence were fully stated and the nature of the accusation was clear. The misdescription was treated as not fatal where no prejudice was shown.
Conclusion: Conviction under Section 3 read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and Clauses 3 and 4 of the Inter-Zonal Wheat and Wheat Products (Movement Control) Order, 1964 was sustained.
Final Conclusion: The acquittal was set aside, the respondents were convicted, and the sentence and confiscation order were restored.
Ratio Decidendi: A statutory requirement to lay a subordinate order before Parliament is not a condition precedent to its validity unless the statute so provides, and a conviction is not vitiated by citation of the wrong control order where the facts constituting the offence are clearly stated and no prejudice is caused.
TaxTMI 
