1980 (1) TMI 211 - HC - Indian Laws

Issues Involved:
1. Whether Section 10 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, is intra vires Article 14 of the Constitution.
2. Validity of the notification issued under Section 10 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932.
3. Applicability of the notification to the area where the offence was committed.
4. Whether the notification issued under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, can be applied to the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether Section 10 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, is intra vires Article 14 of the Constitution:

The petitioner argued that Section 10 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, which makes certain non-cognizable offences cognizable and non-bailable, violates Article 14 of the Constitution. The court examined the legislative intent and the policy behind Section 10, noting that it allows the State Government to declare certain offences cognizable and non-bailable in specific areas. The court held that the conferment of such power upon the State Government is neither irrational nor arbitrary. The court referenced the Supreme Court decision in Shree Meenakshi Mills Ltd v. Visvanatha Sastri, which established that Article 14 guarantees equal protection under both substantive and procedural laws. The court concluded that the legislative policy behind Section 10 has a rational nexus with the objective of maintaining law and order in urban areas with high industrial and political activities. Therefore, Section 10 is not ultra vires Article 14.

2. Validity of the notification issued under Section 10 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932:

The petitioner challenged the validity of the notification issued by the local Government under Section 10 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, which made offences under Section 506 of the IPC cognizable and non-bailable in specific areas. The court examined the notification issued on 15th November 1937, and found that it was still in force. The court held that the notification's application was limited to the municipal limits of the City of Ahmedabad as they were in 1937. The court also considered a subsequent notification issued by the Government of Gujarat on 31st July 1970, which extended the applicability to certain villages, including Vadaj. The court found that the notification was valid and applicable to the area where the offence was committed.

3. Applicability of the notification to the area where the offence was committed:

The court examined whether Patrakar Colony, where the offence was committed, fell within the areas specified in the notifications. The court found that the municipal limits of Ahmedabad in 1937 did not include Patrakar Colony. However, the subsequent notification issued in 1970 included Vadaj, which covered Patrakar Colony. The court relied on evidence provided by the Talati of Vadaj village, confirming that Patrakar Colony was part of Vadaj in 1970. Thus, the court concluded that the notification applied to the area where the offence was committed.

4. Whether the notification issued under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, can be applied to the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973:

The petitioner argued that the notification issued under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, could not be applied to the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The court referred to Section 8 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which provides that references to repealed enactments in any instrument should be construed as references to the re-enacted provisions. The court held that the notification issued under Section 10 with reference to the Cr. P.C., 1898, should be read as having been issued with reference to the Cr. P.C., 1973. Therefore, the notification of 1937 and the subsequent notification of 1970 were relevant and applicable to the instant case.

Conclusion:

The court found that Section 10 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, was not ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. The notifications issued under Section 10 were valid and applicable to the area where the offence was committed. The court dismissed the petition and discharged the rule.

← Previous Next →