1951 (10) TMI 24 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of conviction under the Essential Supplies Act for selling textile cloth above controlled price.
2. Interpretation of the Essential Supplies Act's applicability in the district of Darjeeling.
3. Extension of the Essential Supplies Act's life through legislative resolutions.
4. Conviction under the Essential Supplies Act for loading cloth without a permit.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Validity of conviction under the Essential Supplies Act for selling textile cloth above controlled price.
- The appellant was convicted for selling textile cloth above the controlled price, leading to a six-month rigorous imprisonment. The Sessions Judge acquitted the appellant on grounds of lack of prosecution sanction and the Act not being in force in the district. However, the High Court reinstated the conviction, stating the Act was validly extended to the district and in force on the date of the offense.

Issue 2: Interpretation of the Essential Supplies Act's applicability in the district of Darjeeling.
- The Governor's notification on 14th December 1946 directed the Essential Supplies Act's application to Darjeeling. The Act's life was extended by the Governor-General's notification till 31-3-1948. The Act's applicability to Darjeeling continued as long as it was in force in the rest of India, without needing a fresh notification under section 92(1) of the Government of India Act.

Issue 3: Extension of the Essential Supplies Act's life through legislative resolutions.
- The Constituent Assembly extended the Essential Supplies Act's life through resolutions until 31-3-1950. The adaptations made under the Indian Independence Act substituted the Dominion Legislature with the Constituent Assembly, and the resolutions extended the Act's duration. The case of Jalindra Nath Gupta v. The province of Bihar and others was distinguished, emphasizing the legislative's role in fixing the Act's duration.

Issue 4: Conviction under the Essential Supplies Act for loading cloth without a permit.
- The appellant was convicted for loading cloth without a permit, leading to a nine-month rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The High Court upheld the conviction, rejecting arguments of mens rea absence. The accused's statement and failure to produce a permit indicated a criminal intent, justifying the conviction.

In conclusion, both appeals challenging convictions under the Essential Supplies Act were dismissed based on the Act's valid applicability, legislative extensions, and inference of criminal intent. The judgments emphasized the legislative framework governing the Act's duration and applicability to specific regions.