M MALAYANDI THEVAR Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are four criminal revision cases filed against the orders of the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Tuticorin, in summary cases Nos. 289, 292, 290 & 176 of 1951, holding that the prosecutions launched against the criminal revision petitioners were competent and maintainable.

(2.) There can be no dispute on the limited records before us at this stage concerning the facts, namely, that these petitioners did not comply with Clause 3(2) of the Madras Food Grains (Intensive Procurement) Order, 1950, & the Collector's notification dated 15-7-1950 for surrender of surplus food-grains to the Government, and for which the petitioners have been charged under the Madras Food-grains (Intensive Procurement) Order, 1950, read with Section 7 (1) of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, XXIV (24) of 1946.

(3.) The point taken by them in the lower Court and here is set out by the criminal revision petitioners as follows: The Collector has no power by a District Notification to call upon the accused to surrender the surplus food-grains and that the violation of such an order is not an offence. The powers of the Central Government for regulating or prohibiting the production, supply and distribution trade and commerce in essential commodities under Section 3 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, are delegated to the State Government. The State Government cannot further delegate such cowers to its subordinate officers. In support of this, the decision of our learned brothers Govinda Menon and Basheer Ahmed Sayeed JJ. in Cri M P 518 of 1950, 'Mohomed Sahib In Re', 1950-2 Mad I, J 20, (recent case) has been relied upon. Therein it was held that the fixation of prices of sugar must be done by the State Government by notified order as required under Sections 3 and 4 of Act XXIV (24) of 1946 and the order of the State Government authorising the Collector to fix the price was illegal and not operative and that therefore the price fixation and the notification in the District Gazette were invalid. It is stated that the same principle applied to this case and that the Collector's demand on the accused is not valid.