9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Validity of investigation under Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1955 and Essential Commodities Act, 1955 Interpretation of s. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 Competence of Parliament to legislate on control of sugarcane Constitutionality of impugned order under Art. 19(1) Cognizance of alleged offence under s. 11 of the Act Disclosure of cognizable offence in police complaint Validity of Investigation: The appellants, office bearers of a sugar company, challenged the investigation against them under the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1955 and the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The High Court of Patna had previously rejected their plea. The appellants contended that sub-rule (3) of rule 3 could not be validly issued under s. 3 of the Act. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, holding that food crops, including sugarcane, fall within the ambit of the Act, allowing regulation under s. 3. The Court referenced a previous case to support this interpretation. Interpretation of s. 3 of the Act: The Court analyzed the provisions of s. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, emphasizing that Parliament intended to control the cultivation and sale of food crops, including sugarcane. The Court noted that the Act empowered the Central Government to regulate the production, supply, and distribution of essential commodities, supporting the validity of the investigation under the Act. Competence of Parliament: A contention was raised regarding the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the State over sugarcane as part of agriculture. However, the Court ruled that Parliament's authority to legislate on the production, supply, and distribution of foodstuffs under Entry 33 of List III of the Constitution allowed for the enactment of the Act. The Court upheld the Act's validity in controlling sugarcane. Constitutionality under Art. 19(1): The appellants argued that the impugned order contravened the fundamental rights under Art. 19(1). The Court dismissed this argument, stating that no fundamental right exists for a buyer to delay payment for purchased goods. The regulation of sugarcane prices did not violate any fundamental rights. Cognizance of Offence: The Court addressed the premature contention that s. 11 of the Act barred taking cognizance of the alleged offence. It clarified that this issue was not relevant at the current stage, as no court had yet taken cognizance of the case. The Court deemed this argument premature. Disclosure of Cognizable Offence: The appellants claimed that the police complaint did not disclose a cognizable offence, challenging the police's authority to investigate. However, the Court held that the alleged offence, punishable with imprisonment, was cognizable under the Cr. P.C., allowing the police to conduct an investigation. The Court rejected this contention. In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the validity of the investigation under the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1955 and the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The Court rejected all contentions raised by the appellants, affirming the legality of the investigation and the regulatory framework governing sugarcane prices.
|
