GUM BAHADUR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner in this case was placed on trial before Sri C.L. Choudhury, Magistrate, First Class, Asansole, on a charge of violating the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the West Bengal Security Act, 1950, on the ground that he did not comply with the order, dated August 24, 1953, of the Works Manager Mr. H.H. Drake, for regulating the conduct of the permit holders in a protected place, namely, the Indian Iron and Steel Company's Works at Burnpur, declared to be a protected place under Notification No. 5306 P., dated August 22, 1953. He was convicted by the learned trying Magistrate and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200; in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six weeks. His appeal to the Sessions Judge was dismissed. Thereafter, he obtained the present Rule.

(2.) It appears that the Indian Iron and Steel Company's Works at Burnpur was declared a protected place under Notification No. 5306P., dated August 22, 1953, by the State Government. In the said Notification the Works Manager of the said company, along with certain other persons, named therein, was authorised to grant permission under Sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the West Bengal Security Act, 1950. On the submissions, made before me, this delegation appears to have been made under Section 38 of the Act. On August 24, 1953, the Works Manager purported to issue a notice (Ex. 3) under Sub-section (3) of the said Section 6 for regulating the conduct of persons who were granted permission under Sub-section (2) in regard to the protected place, namely, the Indian Iron and Steel Company's Works at Burnpur. This was obviously done on the strength of the delegated authority, referred to above. The Petitioner was an employee of the aforesaid company and the charge against him is that he contravened the above notice of the Works Manager, issued under Sub-section (3) of Section 6.

(3.) The principal point which requires discussion in this Rule is whether the said notice, issued by the Works Manager, was valid in law so as to justify a prosecution and conviction for contravention of the same. Mr. Roy, appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, has drawn my attention to two cases of this Court. Khagendra Nath De v. District Magistrate of West Dinajpur, 1951 AIR(Cal) 3 and Jatish Chandra Ghose v. B.K. Sinha, 1951 AIR(Cal) 404 where it was held that