9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of Sections 4(2), 28, 29, 30, 31, and 32 of the Madras Prohibition Act, 1937. 2. Repugnancy to Section 107 of the Government of India Act, 1935. 3. Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Constitutionality of Sections 4(2), 28, 29, 30, 31, and 32 of the Madras Prohibition Act, 1937 The primary issue in these appeals is whether the specified sections of the Madras Prohibition Act, 1937, are unconstitutional and void. The relevant provisions include prohibitions on the import, export, transport, possession, and consumption of liquor and intoxicating drugs, as well as the use of materials for the manufacture of such substances. Additionally, these sections provide for presumptions of guilt, search and seizure powers, and arrest without a warrant in relation to offences under the Act. Issue 2: Repugnancy to Section 107 of the Government of India Act, 1935 The appellants contended that Sections 4(2) and 28 to 32 of the Act are void under Section 107 of the Government of India Act, 1935, due to repugnancy with existing Indian laws such as the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. For Section 107 to apply, two conditions must be met: (1) both the Provincial law and Central legislation must pertain to a matter listed in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. The court examined whether the subject matter of the impugned legislation falls within the Provincial List or the Concurrent List. The Madras Prohibition Act, as a whole, is a law concerning intoxicating liquors, falling under Entry 31 of the Provincial List. The court held that the Act's provisions are intended to effectuate the prohibition of intoxicating liquors and are thus within the exclusive competence of the Provincial Legislature. The court applied the "pith and substance" doctrine, which determines the true nature and character of the legislation. It concluded that the presumptions and procedural provisions in Sections 4(2) and 28 to 32 are ancillary to the main objective of prohibiting intoxicating liquors and do not constitute independent legislation on evidence or criminal procedure. Therefore, the Act is not repugnant to the Central legislation and is within the legislative competence of the Provincial Legislature. Issue 3: Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India The appellants argued that the presumptions in Section 4(2) violate Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. They contended that the presumptions lack a reasonable relation to the offences and are arbitrary. The court referred to American jurisprudence on the due process clause, which allows legislatures to prescribe rules of evidence as long as there is a rational connection between the fact proved and the fact presumed. It noted that similar presumptions in American law have been upheld as reasonable and not arbitrary. The court clarified that the presumptions in Section 4(2) should be read distributively in relation to the specific offences under Section 4(1). For example, possession of liquor raises a presumption of an offence under Section 4(1)(a), while possession of materials for manufacturing liquor raises a presumption of an offence under Section 4(1)(g). The court found that these presumptions are reasonable and do not violate Article 14. Conclusion: Both contentions raised by the appellants failed. The court held that Sections 4(2) and 28 to 32 of the Madras Prohibition Act, 1937, are constitutional and do not violate Section 107 of the Government of India Act, 1935, or Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The appeals were dismissed.
|
