DARWARI LAL DUBEY Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special Judge, Chhatarpur, vide order dated 27-9-1989 passed in Special Case No. 2 of 1988 framed charges u/s 7 read with Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act against the two accused persons for having committed breach of certain clauses of the M. P. (Foodstuffs) Civil Supply Distribution Scheme read with the relevant provisions of the M. P. Foodstuffs (Distribution Control) Order, 1960. They challenged the framing of such charges and prayed for quashing of proceedings against them in Criminal Revision No. 501/1989. Their con tention was that the aforesaid Scheme having, been made in exercise of the executive power of the State, it did not form part of the Control Order of 1960 made u/s 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. As such, there was no legal basis for their criminal prosecution and the proceedings were liable to be quashed. To support their contention, reliance was placed on Mohan v. State of M.P. Cri. Appeal No. 520/1987 decided on 14-8-1989. (reported in 1990 Jab LT 348). The learned Single Judge while deciding Mohan's case (supra) had observed :

(2.) Applicants' learned counsel argued that there is no principle of incorporation by reference to permit incorporation of an order made in exer cise of the executive power of the State in any statute. The principle of incorporation by refer ence permits reading of a statutory provision as part of the other statute. In the Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G. P. Singh (Fifth Edition, 1992) this principle has been dealt with from page 176 to 204. Its perusal unmistakebly shows that the principle of incorpo ration by reference is permissible in cases of two enactments which are pari-materia whether contemporary or not. There is not even a remote indication that by virtue of such a principle an order passed in exercise of the executive powers of the State can be read as forming part of an order having the force of law. The learned Govt. Advo cate was allowed sufficient time to enlighten us on the subject. He, too, could not show us anything to the contrary.

(3.) We, therefore, hold that the view taken by the learned Single Judge in Mohan's case (1990 Jab LJ 348) (supra) is the correct view. The reference is answered accordingly. Order accordingly.