1964 (12) TMI 71 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Notification of accident within 24 hours.
2. Applicability of Section 24 of the General Clauses Act.
3. Substantial compliance with notification requirements.
4. Interpretation of "law in force" under Article 20 of the Constitution.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Notification of Accident within 24 Hours:
The primary issue was whether the accused had committed an offence under Section 33 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, by failing to notify the Electrical Inspector of an accident within 24 hours. The prosecution alleged that the company and its General Manager did not provide a written notice within the stipulated time, thus violating the statute.

2. Applicability of Section 24 of the General Clauses Act:
The defence argued that the notification issued under the repealed Section 33(1) of the Indian Electricity Act continued to be in force by virtue of Section 24 of the General Clauses Act. The court held that the notification issued under the repealed section continued in force and was deemed to have been made under the re-enacted provision, provided it was not inconsistent with the new provisions.

3. Substantial Compliance with Notification Requirements:
The defence contended that although a written notice was not given within 24 hours, all the required particulars were communicated orally to the Electrical Inspector, thus substantially complying with the notification requirements. The court agreed, noting that the Electrical Inspector had obtained all necessary information on the day of the accident, except the exact cause, which was impossible to ascertain immediately due to the injured being in the hospital. The court applied the maxim "lex non cogit ad impossibilia" (the law does not compel the impossible), concluding that substantial compliance was sufficient.

4. Interpretation of "Law in Force" under Article 20 of the Constitution:
The defence also argued that the notification could not be considered "law in force" under Article 20 of the Constitution, which prohibits retrospective criminal liability. The court referred to Supreme Court precedents, distinguishing between laws continued in force by Section 24 of the General Clauses Act and laws given retrospective effect by validating legislation. The court held that the notification was factually and actually in force on the date of the offence, thus rejecting the defence's argument.

Conclusion:
The court set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused, holding that the requirements of the notification had been substantially complied with and that there was no violation of Section 33 of the Indian Electricity Act. The petition was allowed, and the fine, if paid, was ordered to be refunded.