Broad provincial power over intoxicating liquors upheld; prohibition by notification valid and constitutional objections rejected.

A provincial legislative entry covering intoxicating liquors and narcotic drugs was construed broadly enough to support prohibition by notification, because the words on production, manufacture, possession, transport, purchase and sale were illustrative and not restrictive. A constitutional limit on laws affecting import and export of goods did not invalidate the measure, because that restriction applied to trade-and-commerce entries, not to legislation grounded in the separate intoxicating liquors and narcotic drugs entry. Previous sanction was also unnecessary, since the earlier excise enactment was not a Governor-General's Act in the relevant constitutional sense. The amending legislation was therefore upheld, and the conviction under the notification sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Provincial Legislature had competence under the legislative entry relating to intoxicating liquors and narcotic drugs to authorise prohibition by notification. (ii) Whether the amending provision was invalid for repugnancy to the constitutional restriction on prohibitory laws affecting import and export of goods. (iii) Whether the amending Act required previous sanction as an amendment of a Governor-General's Act.

Issue (i): Whether the Provincial Legislature had competence under the legislative entry relating to intoxicating liquors and narcotic drugs to authorise prohibition by notification.

Analysis: The legislative entry was construed as conferring power to legislate with respect to intoxicating liquors in a wide sense. The words describing production, manufacture, possession, transport, purchase and sale were treated as explanatory and illustrative rather than limiting. A power to legislate on the subject was held to include power to prohibit possession throughout the Province or in specified areas. The restriction drawn from authorities dealing with powers to regulate was held inapplicable because the entry did not use limiting language such as regulation.

Conclusion: The Provincial Legislature had competence to authorise prohibition, and the amending Act was valid on this ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the amending provision was invalid for repugnancy to the constitutional restriction on prohibitory laws affecting import and export of goods.

Analysis: The constitutional restriction was held to operate only in relation to the specified legislative entries dealing with trade and commerce within the Province and production, supply and distribution of commodities. It did not apply to legislation founded on the separate entry dealing with intoxicating liquors and narcotic drugs. Since the impugned law derived authority from that separate entry, the restriction could not be invoked to invalidate it.

Conclusion: The challenge based on repugnancy failed.

Issue (iii): Whether the amending Act required previous sanction as an amendment of a Governor-General's Act.

Analysis: The earlier excise enactment was not treated as a Governor-General's Act in the relevant sense merely because it had once received assent of the Governor-General. The expression was confined to an Act enacted by the Governor-General in the exercise of the special legislative power contemplated by the Constitution Act. Accepting the appellant's contention would have led to the unreasonable result that all pre-1937 enactments requiring assent would be so treated.

Conclusion: Previous sanction was not required and the amendment was not invalid on this ground.

Final Conclusion: The amending legislation was upheld as within legislative competence, and the conviction based on the notification issued under it was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A legislative entry conferring power over a subject in general terms authorises prohibition where the language is wide enough, and a constitutional limitation directed to other entries cannot defeat legislation validly enacted under a separate entry.

---