9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Distribution Order under the Defence of India Rules. 2. Legal existence and jurisdiction of the Second Lahore Tribunal. 3. Continuation of proceedings after the expiration of the Defence of India Act. 4. Jurisdiction of the High Court's orders under Section 205(1) of the Government of India Act, 1935. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Distribution Order under the Defence of India Rules: The appellants argued that the Iron and Steel (Control of Distribution) Order, 1941 (Distribution Order) was invalid. They contended that the Distribution Order, made under Rule 81(2) of the Defence of India Rules, was not expressed to be made by the Governor-General in Council as required by Section 40(1) of the Government of India Act, 1935. The Court clarified that the term "Central Government" in the Distribution Order should be interpreted as the Governor-General in Council, as per the General Clauses Act, 1897. The Court held that the provisions of Section 40(1) were directory and not mandatory, meaning the Distribution Order was valid even if not explicitly expressed as made by the Governor-General in Council. The Court concluded that the Distribution Order complied substantially with Section 40(1) and dismissed the appellants' contention. 2. Legal Existence and Jurisdiction of the Second Lahore Tribunal: The appellants challenged the continued existence and jurisdiction of the Second Lahore Tribunal. The Tribunal was constituted under the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1943, and subsequent amendments. The appellants argued that the Tribunal ceased to exist after the repeal of certain Ordinances by Ordinance I of 1946. The Court rejected this argument, citing saving provisions in Clause 3 of Ordinance I of 1946 and Section 6A of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The Court also addressed the appellants' contention that the Tribunal's jurisdiction ended with the expiration of the Defence of India Act on September 30, 1946. The Court held that the Bombay Act XXI of 1946 extended the Tribunal's jurisdiction, allowing it to continue dealing with the specified cases. 3. Continuation of Proceedings after the Expiration of the Defence of India Act: The Defence of India Act expired on September 30, 1946, raising questions about the continuation of proceedings for offences committed under it. The Court referred to Ordinance XII of 1946, which amended Section 1(4) of the Defence of India Act to include saving provisions. These provisions allowed for the continuation of investigations, legal proceedings, and imposition of penalties as if the Act had not expired. The Court also drew parallels with the English case Wicks v. Director of Public Prosecutions, where similar saving provisions were upheld. The Court concluded that the saving provisions in the Defence of India Act were sufficient to continue the proceedings against the appellants. 4. Jurisdiction of the High Court's Orders under Section 205(1) of the Government of India Act, 1935: The Court addressed whether the High Court's orders in these cases constituted "judgment, decree or final order" under Section 205(1) of the Government of India Act, 1935. The Court emphasized that it was not for the Court to question the certificates granted by the High Courts but held that it had the duty to determine whether the appeal was from a "judgment, decree or final order" to ensure jurisdiction. The Court noted that orders made during the continuation of proceedings, which result in pending proceedings continuing, may not constitute a "judgment, decree or final order." However, the Court did not make a definitive ruling on this issue for the present appeals. Conclusion: The Court dismissed all the appeals, holding that the Distribution Order was valid, the Second Lahore Tribunal had legal existence and jurisdiction, the proceedings could continue after the expiration of the Defence of India Act, and the High Court's orders were subject to the Court's jurisdiction under Section 205(1) of the Government of India Act, 1935.
|
