CROWN PROSECUTOR Vs. GKOTHANDARAMIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is by the Crown against an order of the 2nd Presidency Magistrate acquitting Mr. G. Kothandaramiah, Manager of a journal called the International Police Service Magazine of a charge preferred against him under Section 64 of the Post Office Act. On the 29 October 1908 the accused sent a copy of the Magazine by value payable post to Mr. Webster, Superintendent of Police, Haldwani, signing a declaration to the effect that the article was sent in execution of a bona fide order received by him. Without such declaration being made the Post Office would not, by reason of a rule issued under the Act by the Governor-General in Council, have accepted the V.P. article for transmission to the addressee. Mr. Webster refused to receive the article on the ground that he never gave an order for it and moved for the prosecution of the sender for making a false declaration to the contrary in violation of the Post Offices Act. The Magistrate found on the evidence that the accused had received no order from Mr. Webster to send the V. P. article and therefore the declaration made by the accused was false. He, however, thought that the prosecution must fail because the Post Offices Act itself, that is the section in the body of the Act, does not require such declaration to be made and therefore the words of Section 64 which says " whoever being required by this Act to make a declaration, etc.," cannot sustain the charge because the rule framed by the Governor-General in Council is not part of the Act though properly framed under powers conferred upon the Act.

(2.) This view is obviously wrong. According to the general canon of interpretation, when a statute empowers the Government or any other authority to frame rules or bye-laws for the purpose of carrying out the objects of the statute, rules or bye-laws so framed must, if within the scope of such powers, be regarded as part of the enactment. And in this case Section 74, Clause 3, of the Act expressly lays down that rules made under the Act shall have effect as if enacted by the Act. Section 35 gives power to the Governor-General in Council to make rules directing the Postal authorities not to receive a V.P. Art. for transmission unless its sender makes a declaration that it is sent in execution of a bona fide order received by him and Section 74, Clause (1), gives him power generally to make rules for the purpose of carrying out the objects of the Act. The rule which the accused is said to have violated was made in pursuance of such powers. (See Rule No. 68 Notification dated the 5 of August 1908, Gazette of India, Part I, August 1908, page 747). But it is argued by Mr. Sundara Aiyar who appealed in support of the Magistrate's order that that is not "requiring a declaration within the meaning of Section 64. It is somewhat difficult to appreciate the point of this-argument. If it be that the Postal authorities cannot, by an order-passed under the Act, compel a person to make any declaration on the pun, if he refuses to make the declaration, of his being guilty of the offence of disobeying a lawful order within the meaning of the Indian Penal Code, that may be conceded. But that is not the question here. What is clearly required by the Act is that if a person wishes to utilize the service of the Post Office for sending a V. P. article and makes a declaration to obtain such services he shall make a true declaration. If he makes a false declaration, or a declaration which he does not believe himself to be true, he makes himself liable to the penalty prescribed by Section 64.

(3.) Another branch of Mr. Sundara Aiyar's argument, so far as we are able to follow it, is that Clauses 1 and 2 of Section 74 should be read together and reading them together, he contends that the general power to frame rules conferred by Clause (1) must be confined to making such rules as are contemplated by Clause (2) and not rules requiring a declaration within the "contemplation of Section 64. But there is no reason whatever for cutting down in this manner the operation of the general words of Clause (1) of Section 74. Clause (2) of that section is obviously meant to meet such cases for which no penalty is prescribed by any of the sections of the Act itself. Besides, as already pointed out Section 35 expressly authorises the Governor-General in Council to make such a rule as the one in question.