1953 (10) TMI 41 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of Sections 7, 17, and 20(1) of the Paddy (Acquisition and Movement) Control Order, 1950.
2. Constitutionality of Section 3 of the Public Safety Measures Act, 1950.
3. Compliance with Article 304(b) of the Constitution.
4. Legislative competence of the State Legislature under Article 246.
5. Validity of the Paddy (Acquisition and Movement) Control Order, 1950.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Sections 7, 17, and 20(1) of the Paddy (Acquisition and Movement) Control Order, 1950
The petitioner was prosecuted for contravening Sections 7 and 17 of the Paddy (Acquisition and Movement) Control Order, 1950, and was convicted under Section 20(1). The trial court found that the petitioner transported paddy without the requisite permits, resulting in fines and imprisonment. The Sessions Court confirmed these convictions. The petitioner challenged the legality of these sections, arguing they were void due to the unconstitutionality of the enabling act, the Public Safety Measures Act, 1950.

2. Constitutionality of Section 3 of the Public Safety Measures Act, 1950
The petitioner contended that Section 3 of the Public Safety Measures Act, 1950, was unconstitutional and void as it was not enacted in conformity with Article 304(b) of the Constitution. Article 304(b) requires that any bill imposing restrictions on trade, commerce, and intercourse within a state must have the President's previous sanction. The State did not comply with this requirement, rendering Section 3 void.

3. Compliance with Article 304(b) of the Constitution
Article 304(b) allows state legislatures to impose reasonable restrictions on trade, commerce, and intercourse within the state, provided the President's previous sanction is obtained. The State admitted that the Public Safety Measures Act, 1950, did not receive the President's sanction before its introduction and enactment. This non-compliance with the mandatory proviso of Article 304(b) invalidated Section 3 of the Act.

4. Legislative Competence of the State Legislature under Article 246
The State argued that Section 3 of the Public Safety Measures Act fell within the exclusive legislative competence of the State Legislature under items 26 and 27 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. However, the court clarified that while the State Legislature had exclusive power under Article 246(3), this power was not absolute and was subject to other constitutional provisions, including Article 304(b).

5. Validity of the Paddy (Acquisition and Movement) Control Order, 1950
Since the Paddy (Acquisition and Movement) Control Order, 1950, was issued under the powers conferred by the invalid Section 3 of the Public Safety Measures Act, it lacked legal sanction. Consequently, the Control Order itself was declared void. The acts committed by the petitioner under this void Order could not constitute legal offences, leading to the quashing of his convictions and sentences.

Conclusion
Both revision petitions were allowed, and the convictions and sentences against the petitioner in C.C. Nos. 11/1950 and 12/1950 were quashed. The petitioner was acquitted of all charges, and any fines paid were ordered to be refunded. Additionally, the value of the paddy forfeited to the State was also to be refunded to the petitioner.