TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Upholds Convictions Under Rule 81(4) for Food Grain Sale Violations (4)</h1> <h3>Madho Singh and Ors. Versus Emperor</h3> The court upheld the convictions of the petitioners under Rule 81(4) of the Defence of India Rules for contravening orders related to the sale and export ... - Issues Involved:1. Conviction under Rule 81(4) of the Defence of India Rules.2. Validity of the order fixing the maximum price for rice.3. Validity of the notification of the Provincial Government.4. Impact of the change in law between the date of occurrence and the date of conviction.5. Interpretation of the phrase 'shall cease to have effect' in the context of Rule 81(2) of the Defence of India Rules.Detailed Analysis:1. Conviction under Rule 81(4) of the Defence of India Rules:The petitioners were convicted under Rule 81(4) for contravening orders related to the sale and export of food grains. In Case No. 939, the petitioners sold rice at a price higher than the maximum fixed price. In Case No. 982, the petitioner attempted to export paddy in contravention of a government embargo. Both convictions were upheld by the lower courts.2. Validity of the Order Fixing the Maximum Price for Rice:The validity of the order fixing the maximum price for rice was not impugned. It was established that the order was still in force on the date of the occurrence in Case No. 939. The court noted that the order was made by an officer subordinate to the Provincial Government, as authorized by Section 2(5) of the Defence of India Act.3. Validity of the Notification of the Provincial Government:The notification placing an embargo on the export of paddy was also not contested. It was confirmed that the notification was valid and in force on the date of the occurrence in Case No. 982. The Provincial Government had the authority to issue such notifications under Rule 81(2) of the Defence of India Rules.4. Impact of the Change in Law Between the Date of Occurrence and the Date of Conviction:The petitioners argued that due to a change in the law, specifically the insertion of a proviso in Rule 81(2) on 18th May 1943, their convictions were illegal. The proviso stated that orders made under Clause (a) of Rule 81(2) by the Provincial Government would cease to have effect regarding the movement, transport, distribution, disposal, or acquisition of any food grains or their products. The court examined whether this change annulled the orders and notifications retroactively, thereby invalidating the convictions.5. Interpretation of the Phrase 'Shall Cease to Have Effect':The court analyzed the legal implications of the phrase 'shall cease to have effect' in the context of Rule 81(2). It was argued that this phrase implied the orders were abrogated, and thus, no convictions could be based on them post-18th May 1943. However, the court referred to Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, and various legal precedents, concluding that the principle of repeal does not apply to the Defence of India Rules in the same manner as it does to Central Acts or Regulations. The court determined that the orders and notifications were not 'repealed' in a way that would negate past contraventions.The court held that the contraventions that occurred before the change in law remained punishable, even if the orders ceased to have effect subsequently. The principle from Attorney-General v. Lamplough (1878) was applied, allowing the court to consider the repealed provisions to construe the remaining rules.Conclusion:The court concluded that the convictions of the petitioners were valid and upheld them. However, considering the time already spent in jail, the sentences were reduced. The petitioners in Case No. 939 were fined Rs. 50 each, with a default sentence of three weeks' rigorous imprisonment. In Case No. 982, the substantive imprisonment was reduced to the period already undergone, with the fine of Rs. 50 maintained.The judgment clarified that the cessation of the orders' effect did not retroactively annul the punishability of contraventions that occurred while the orders were in force.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
