1976 (10) TMI 155 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Authority to make complaints under Section 7(1) of the Telegraph Wires (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1950.
2. Judicial notice of notifications under Section 57(1) of the Evidence Act, 1872.
3. Validity of the decision in Mathuradas v. State, AIR 1954 Nag 296.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Authority to Make Complaints under Section 7(1):
The respondent was prosecuted under Section 5 of the Telegraph Wires (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1950, based on a complaint by the Station Officer, Rehli. The Magistrate convicted the respondent, but the First Additional Sessions Judge acquitted him, ruling that the Station Officer was not empowered under Section 7(1) to make the complaint. The State appealed, presenting Notification No. G. S. R. 1512 of December 24, 1960, which empowered the Station Officer and similar officers to make such complaints. The Division Bench referred the matter to a larger Bench to reconsider the correctness of Mathuradas' case, which influenced the decision.

2. Judicial Notice of Notifications under Section 57(1):
Section 57 of the Evidence Act mandates judicial notice of "all laws in force in the territory of India." The Court examined whether a notification under Section 7(1) of the Telegraph Wires Act qualifies as "law." The notification in question, published in the Gazette, empowered specific officers to make complaints. The Court held that such notifications, being legislative in nature, supplement the statute and thus have the force of law. Therefore, judicial notice must be taken of these notifications under Section 57(1).

3. Validity of the Decision in Mathuradas v. State:
Mathuradas' case held that a notification fixing the retail price of yarn under the Cotton Textiles (Control) Order, 1948, was not part of the law of the land and could not be judicially noticed under Section 57(1) of the Evidence Act. The Court in the present case disagreed, stating that statutory notifications, especially those fixing prices, are legislative measures and have the force of law. The Court noted that the general observation in Mathuradas' case, which excluded notifications from the definition of "law," was erroneous. The Court cited various precedents and legal principles to support that delegated legislation, including notifications, is part of the law.

Conclusion:
The Court concluded that Notification No. G. S. R. 1512 issued under Section 7(1) of the Telegraph Wires Act is legislative in nature and must be judicially noticed under Section 57(1) of the Evidence Act. Mathuradas' case was deemed wrongly decided. The appeal was referred back to the Division Bench for final disposal, with the larger Bench affirming the legislative nature of the notification and its inclusion within the scope of "law" for judicial notice purposes.