1955 (12) TMI 42 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legislative competence of the Bombay Legislature regarding medicinal preparations containing alcohol.
2. Validity of the Government's resolution declaring Hall's Wine fit for use as intoxicating liquor.
3. Power under the Act to prohibit the sale, consumption, or use of preparations fit for use as intoxicating liquor.
4. Reasonableness of restrictions imposed on medicinal preparations containing alcohol, particularly Hall's Wine, under Article 19(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution.
5. Correctness of the Government's determination that Hall's Wine is fit for use as intoxicating liquor.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legislative Competence of the Bombay Legislature:
The petitioners argued that the Bombay Legislature lacked the competence to legislate in respect of medicinal preparations containing alcohol. This argument was refuted by the Supreme Court decision in 'Balsara's Case' which held that the word "liquor" in entry 31 in List II of Schedule 7, Government of India Act, included medicinal preparations containing alcohol. Additionally, the Madras High Court in 'Nageswara Rao v. State of Madras' supported this view, holding that statutes relating to prohibition of intoxicating liquors could validly regulate medicinal preparations to prevent their diversion for noxious purposes.

2. Validity of the Government's Resolution:
The petitioners contended that the Government's resolution declaring Hall's Wine fit for use as intoxicating liquor was invalid as the reference to the Board of Experts exceeded their statutory powers. The court found that the Board's advice on quantities required to produce intoxication was outside the scope of Section 6A. However, the resolution was not rendered invalid because the Government had deleted the part of the resolution dealing with quantities, and the determination that Hall's Wine was fit for use as intoxicating liquor was based on valid advice from the Board.

3. Power Under the Act:
The petitioners argued that there was no power under the Act to prohibit the sale, consumption, or use of preparations fit for use as intoxicating liquor, rendering the Bombay Spirituous Medicinal Preparations (Sales) Rules ultra vires. The court held that if the restrictions imposed by the amended Act were reasonable, Sections 12(c) and (d) and 13(b) would not be void. Additionally, even if these sections were deemed obliterated, Sections 11 and 31 of the Act provided sufficient prohibition regarding the sale, possession, consumption, and use of medicinal preparations containing alcohol.

4. Reasonableness of Restrictions:
The petitioners challenged the reasonableness of the restrictions imposed on Hall's Wine under Article 19(1)(f) and (g). The court considered the procedural and substantive provisions of the amended Act and the Rules. It concluded that the requirement of a medical prescription for obtaining Hall's Wine was reasonable to prevent its abuse as a substitute for intoxicating liquor. The court also found that the power of the Collector to grant or refuse a licence under Rule 5 was not arbitrary or uncontrolled, as it was subject to the requirement of reasonable grounds and the provision of reasons, given the right of appeal.

5. Determination of Hall's Wine as Fit for Use as Intoxicating Liquor:
The court examined the meaning of "fit for use as intoxicating liquor" and concluded that it meant fit for use as a beverage. The evidence showed that Hall's Wine, being a fortified wine with added vitamins, was capable of being used as a beverage. The court found that the Government's determination that Hall's Wine was fit for use as intoxicating liquor was correct and supported by evidence.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, holding that the Bombay Legislature had the competence to legislate on medicinal preparations containing alcohol, the Government's resolution was valid, the restrictions imposed were reasonable, and Hall's Wine was correctly determined to be fit for use as intoxicating liquor. The petitioners' challenge to the regulation of Hall's Wine failed.