9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of the East Punjab Cotton Cloth and Yarn (Regulation of Movement) Order, 1947. 2. Validity of the Governor's authority to legislate on matters of export and import. 3. Alleged admission by Attar Singh and its impact on the judgment. Detailed Analysis: 1. Constitutionality of the East Punjab Cotton Cloth and Yarn (Regulation of Movement) Order, 1947: The primary contention was whether the East Punjab Cotton Cloth and Yarn Order, 1947, was ultra vires the authority of the Governor, as it purported to legislate on matters of export and import across the customs frontier. The defense argued that the Governor exceeded his delegated authority by prohibiting the export of cotton cloth and yarn to any place outside India, which is a central subject under the Government of India Act, 1935. The Court referred to the Government of India Act, 1935, and subsequent enactments, including the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946. It was noted that the Central Government had the power to legislate on provincial subjects during a state of emergency, and this power was delegated to the Governor of Punjab. The Court held that the Essential Supplies Act aimed to regulate the production, supply, and distribution of essential commodities and that the restriction on export was ancillary to these objectives. Thus, the Governor's order was within the scope of the delegated authority. 2. Validity of the Governor's Authority to Legislate on Matters of Export and Import: The defense argued that the Essential Supplies Act did not cover export and import matters, which were central subjects. They contended that the Act was intended to deal exclusively with provincial matters and that the Central Legislature had separate legislation for export and import control. The Court dismissed these arguments, stating that the language of the Essential Supplies Act did not limit the scope of "trade and commerce" to within provinces. The Act's objective was to ensure the supply and distribution of essential commodities, which could naturally include restrictions on export to maintain local supplies. The Court also noted that the Central Legislature had the competence to legislate on both provincial and central subjects, and the Essential Supplies Act was a valid exercise of this power. 3. Alleged Admission by Attar Singh and Its Impact on the Judgment: The defense for Attar Singh argued that both the Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court relied on an alleged admission by Attar Singh that he was present at the customs barrier on the morning of the incident. This admission was claimed to be non-existent, as there was no written statement or record of such an admission. The Court found that the lower courts had indeed referred to and relied upon this supposed admission, which was not supported by the record. The Court emphasized the importance of a fair trial and noted that the alleged admission was highly prejudicial to Attar Singh. Consequently, the Court ordered a rehearing of the appeal by the Sessions Court, excluding the alleged admission from consideration. The Court also noted that Darshan Singh's case was closely interconnected with Attar Singh's, as the prosecution's evidence against Darshan Singh was primarily based on his association with Attar Singh. Therefore, the Court ordered a rehearing of Darshan Singh's case as well. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed both appeals, set aside the judgments of the High Court and the Additional Sessions Judge, and remitted the cases to the Sessions Court for a fresh hearing, excluding the alleged admission of Attar Singh from consideration. Pending the decision, the accused were to remain on bail under the same terms as before.
|
