NARAIN DAS Vs. REX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant Narain Das was in this revision as well as the other connected revisions numbered 925, 926, 927 and 951 convicted under para. 8, U. P. Oil Seeds and Oilseeds' Products Control Order, 1945 issued under Notification No. A-7584/C. S. dated 1st September 1945, read with Sub-rule 4 of Rule 81, Defence of India Rules and sentenced to thirty days' rigorous imprisonment in the case out of which this revision arises and to various amounts of fines in the other cases, by Shri Brij Behari Lal, Magistrate of the First Class, Allahabad. His appeals were dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge of Allahabad. He has come up in revision to this Court against his convictions and sentences. The offences alleged to have been committed in all these cases occurred between 1st December 1945 and 26th January 1946. The Control Order was issued by the U. P. Government in exercise of the power conferred by Sub-rule 2 of Rule 81, Defence of India Rules. The Defence of India Rules were framed under Section 2, Defence of India Act, 1939 (XXXV [35] of 1939). This Act followed the promulgation of a "Proclamation of Emergency" by the Governor-General under Section 102, Government of India Act, 1935 on 3rd September 1939. After the issue of such a proclamation, the Central Government had the power to make laws for the Province or any part thereof with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the Provincial Legislative List also. There can be no doubt that the wide powers that were given to the Central Government under the Defence of India Act were perfectly legal. Section 2 of the Act conferred upon the Central Government the power to make such rules as appeared to it "to be necessary or expedient for securing the defence of British India, the public safety, the maintenance oil public order or the efficient prosecution of war, or for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community."

(2.) Under Sub-section (4) of that section the Central Government was authorised to direct that "any power or duty which by rule under Sub-section (1) is conferred or imposed upon the Central Government shall in such circumstances and under such conditions, if any, as may be specified in the direction be exercised or discharged. . . . . (b) whether or not the power or duty relates to a matter with respect to which a Provincial legislature has power to make laws, by any Provincial Government or by any officer or authority subordinate to such Government." The Central Government under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 81, Defence of India Rules authorised Provincial Governments to issue orders under that rule and it was in the exercise of this power that the Provincial Government promulgated the Order in question. It will thus be seen that the Order was not issued by the Provincial Government in exercise of its power to pass any law in accordance with the provisions of the Government of India Act or by way of executive action. The order was passed under the Defence of India Rules in exercise of the power conferred upon it by those rules in accordance with the provisions of the Defence of India Act. The Defence of India Rules and the Act ceased to have effect on 30th September 1946 six months after the "Proclamation of Emergency" had been withdrawn by the Governor General. The offences in question, however, were committed several months before the Defence of India Act and the Defence of India Rules ceased to exist and if the Control Order was properly issued by the U. P. Government I cannot understand how the convictions of the applicant in the several cases in which he was tried can be regarded as illegal.

(3.) It is pointed out that the Control Order is contrary to the provisions of para. (a), of Sub-section (1) of Section 297, Government of India Act and as such illegal. The sub-section runs as follows: