BASDEO AGARWALLA Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant in this case was charged with two offences alleged to have been committed on April 20, 1944, contravening the provisions of clause 9(a) and 13(d) of the Drugs Control Order, 1943. He was convicted on June 29, 1944, and sentenced to a term of four months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000, or in default to a further term of four months rigorous imprisonment. Against this conviction he appealed to the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal, and on November 13, 1944, his appeal was dismissed, although the sentence of imprisonment was reduced from four months to one month. A certificate under Section 205 of the Government of India Act, 1935, was granted and hence the appeal to this Court. The Drugs Control Order, 1943, provides by Clause 16 as follows : No prosecution for any contravention of the provisions of this Order shall be instituted without the previous sanction of the Provincial Government....

(2.) In purported compliance with the provisions of Clause 16, the Provincial Government of Bengal made an order sanctioning the prosecution of the appellant by a document dated May 23, 1944, in the following terms: Whereas it appears from a report of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Enforcement Department Calcutta that. Basudev Agarwalla, son of Anandram Agarwalla. of 185 Harrison Road, Calcutta, c|o Messrs. Umashankar & Co., Ltd., sold on April 20, 1944, 6X1 c.c. ampoules of Emetine Hydrochloride containing 1 gr. each to Babu H. N. Roy, Sub-Inspector of Excise employed on drugs control work for Rs. 13 in contravention of Clause 9 of the, Drugs Control Order, 1943, the Provincial Government, in exercise of the power conferred by Clause 16 of the said Order, sanction the prosecution of the aforesaid... Basudev Agarwalla under Sub- rule (4) of Rule 81 of the Defence of India Rules. (Sd.) Section Banerji,Secretary to Government of Bengal.

(3.) It was argued before us that the sanction ill the above form did not comply with the provisions of Secs.49 and 59 of the Government of India Act, 1935. It was suggested that under those sections the sanction must be expressed to be given by the Governor and that it was improper that the Provincial Government should have purported to sanction the prosecution. This argument was apparently based on what were assumed to have been the views of the majority of this Court in King Emperor V/s. Sibnath Banerjee (1944) F.C.R. 1. But as pointed out in that case where special statutory powers are conferred and specific provision is made in the statute as to the manner in which the powers are to be exercised, they should be exercised by the authority and in the manner specified in the statute and in strict conformity with the provisions thereof. In this case the provisions of Clause 16 expressly authorise the previous sanction of the Provincial Government, and accordingly in our judgment no valid objection can be taken to the form of the sanction purported to be given in this case.