http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: MANGI LAL

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/09/1969

BENCH: SIKRI, S.M. BENCH: SIKRI, S.M. MITTER, G.K. REDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN

CITATION:  1970 AIR 1829            1970 SCR  (2) 270  1969 SCC  (2) 731

ACT: Maharashtra  Jwar  (Restriction  on purchase  and  sale  and control  movement)  Order,  1964--Provision  for  forfeiting packages,   covering  and  receptacles   in--If   authorises forfeiture of Juar--Defence of India Rules, r.  125(a)--Rule if ultra vires as contravening s. 114 Evidence Act.

HEADNOTE: The  appellant was convicted and sentenced under  r.  125(a) Defence  of  India Rules for contravening el.  4(b)  of  the Maharashtra  Jwar  (Restriction on purchases  and  sale  and control  of movement) Order, 1964, for contravening  Buldana District Price Control Order, 1965; and for contravening el. 3  of  the  Maharashtra Foodgrains  (Declaration  of  Stock) (Second)   Order, 1964.  The   Magistrate  further   ordered that the maddamal (Juar) before the court be confiscated  by the  Government. The .appellant appealed  unsuccessfully  to the  Sessions  Judge.   But the High  Court  set  aside  the conviction and sentence under el. 3 of the Maharashtra  Food Grains  (Declaration  of Stock) Order, and  maintained  the- other convictions  in an appeal to this Court the  appellant contended  that  (i)  the High Court having  set  aside  the conviction  under  el.  3  of  the  Maharashtra   Foodgrains (Declaration of Stocks)  (Second) Order, 1964 the order  for forfeiture  could not be maintained because the  Maharashtra Jwar  (Restriction  on  Purchase ’and sale  and  control  of movement)  Order,/964, and the Buldana District Jwar  (Price Control)   Order   1965  did  not  contain   any   provision authorising the court to forfeit; and (ii) r. 141(2) of  the Defence of India Rules, 1962 was ultra vires because it laid down a rule of evidence contrary to the law contained in  s. 114 of the Indian Evidence Act.     HELD: (i) The order of forfeiture was illegal.  The only provision contained in the Maharashtra Jwar (Restriction  on Purchase  and Sale and Control of Movement) Order, 1964,  is regarding forfeiture   of  packages covering or  receptacles in  which any  stocks  of juar  are  found.  This  does  not enable  the  Court  to order forfeiture  of  juar.       The Buldana  District Juar (Price Control) Order authorises  the Collector to  seize stocks but does not enable the Court  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

forfeit juar. [274 H]     (ii) r. 141(2) is within the powers conferred by s. 3(1) of  the  Defence of India Act.  The fact that  the  rule  is contrary to an existing Act does not matter because s. 43 of the  Defence of India Act provides that "the  provisions  of this Act or any rule made thereunder or any order made under any  such  rule shall have effect  notwithstanding  anything inconsistent therewith contained in any enactment other than this Act or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any enactment other than this Act." [275 F-G]

JUDGMENT: CRIMINAL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 193 of 1967.     Appeal  by  special leave from the  judgment  and  order dated March 7, 1967 of the  Bombay High Court, Nagpur  Bench in Criminal Revision Application No. 306 of 1966.       271     G.N. Dikshit, S.K. Bisaria appellant.and R.N.  Sachthey, for the appellant. H.R. Khanna and S.P. Nayar, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     Sikri, J.  This Court granted special leave to appeal in this case limited to the following two points:               (1   )   whether  the  confiscation   of   the               foodgrains  in the house of the appellant  was               legal; and               (2) whether r. 141 (2) of the Defence of India               Rules: 1962 is not ultra vires the: Defence of               India Act.     The  facts relevant to the first point are  as  follows: Certain  shpherds   belonging to a  wandering   tribe   were apprehended by the police one night while they were carrying 12  baggages containing juar on the backs of 12 horses.   On being  questioned  they informed the police  that  they  had purchased  all this quantity of juar from the  appellant  at the rate of 78 paise per kg.  On this information the police raided  the houses of   the  appellant and further found  34 quintals and 63 kgs of juar.  The appellant had two  house.s at  Janephal  and in one house 3     quintals   and  48  kgs while in the other house 31 quintals and 18 kgs. of juar was found, which was seized by the police.  The last declaration of  stock which had been given by the appellant was on  June 5, 1965.     The  appellant was tried and convicted o.n three  courts by  the  Judicial Magistrate, First Class,  Mehkar.  He  was convicted  under  r.  125(9), Defence of  India  Rules,  for contravening cl. 4(b) of the Maharashtra Jwar  (Restrictions on purchases and sale  and control of movement) Order, 1964, and  sentenced to  rigorous imprisonment for six months  and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default further rigorous  imprisonment for  six months.  He was further convicted for  contravening Buldana District Price Control Order, 1965, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine  of  Rs. 500/- ,   in   default  rigorous  imprisonment  for  six   months. He    was    also   convicted   for  contravenvening   S.  3 of   the  Maharashtra  Declaration  of  Stock Order,   1964, and  sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six  months  and fine  of Rs. 500/- in default further rigorous  imprisonment for  six  months.  The sentences of  imprisonment  on   each count  were  directed to run concurrently.   The  Magistrate further  ordered  that  the maddemal  before  the  Court  be confiscated to the Government.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

   The  appellant appealed unsuccessfully to  the  Sessions Judge. He then filed a revision before the High Court.   The High Court 272 set  aside  the  conviction  and  sentence  passed  on   the appellant  in  respect  of contravention of  cl.  3  of  the Maharashtra  Foodgrains  (Declaration  of  Stocks)  (Second) Order,  1964.  But while maintaining the conviction for  the other  two  charges the High Court  modified  the  sentences passed on the appellant and instead of the sentences awarded by the lower courts sentenced  the  accused to  imprisonment already  undergone and fine  of  Rs. 1,000  on .each of  the two. counts.  The High Court observed:                   "The  order  regarding forfeiture  of  the               juar  seized from the house of the accused  is               maintained.   The juar seized from the:  house               in the occupation of Ratanlal will however  be               released."     The learned counsel contends that the High Court  having set  aside  the  conviction  and  sentence  in  respect   of contravention  of  cl.  3  of  the  Maharashtra   Foodgrains (Declaration   of   Stocks)  (Second) Order,  1964,  it  was illegal   to  maintain  the  order regarding  forfeiture  of the Juar seized from the  house  of  the appellant  because, he says, the Maharashtra Jowar (Restriction .on Purchase and Sale  and Control of Movement) Order, 1964, and the  Buldana District  Juar (Price Control) Order, 1965, did not  contain any provision authorising the Court to forfeit the juar, the subject-matter   of   the   contravention   of   these   two orders.               Rule 125(9) provides:                   "(a)   If  any  person   contravenes   any               provision  of  this rule o.r any  order  made:               under  this  rule,  he  shall   be  Punishable               with imprisonment for a term which may  extend               to  three years, or with fine, or  with  both:               Provided                   (b)  If any order made under this rule  so               provides, any court trying a contravention  of               the   order  may direct that any  property  in               respect  of which the Court is satisfied  that               the  order  has  been  contravened  shall   be               forfeited to Government."     The  learned counsel for the State has not been able  to point  out any provision in the two orders  mentioned  above containing any provision contemplated in r. 125(9)(b).   The only   provision   contained  in   the   Maharashtra   Jowar (Restriction on Purchase ’and Sale and Control of  Movement) Order,  1964, is  regarding forfeiture to the Government  of packages,  coverings or receptacles in which any  stocks  of jowar  are found.  This obviously does not enable the  Court to order forfeiture of Juar. 273     The  Buldana District Juar (Price Control) Order,  1965, it  is true, authorises the Collector to seize  stocks   but does   not  enable the Court to. forfeit the juar.   In  the result we hold that the order of the High Court  maintaining the  order  of forfeiture is allegal and liable  to  be  set aside.     On  the  second  point  the  learned  counsel  for   the appellant  contends that r. 141(2) of the Defence  of  India Rules,  1962, is ultra vires because it lays down a rule  of evidence  contrary to. the law contained in section  114  of the  Indian Evidence Act.  Rule 141 (2) is in the  following terms:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

             "141  (2)  If in the course  of  any  judicial               proceedings a question arises whether a person               was duly informed                   of  an order made in pursuance:  of  these               Rules, compliance with sub-rule (1 ), or where               the  order was notified, the  notification  of               the  order shall be conclusive proof  that  he               was so. informed; but a failure to comply with               sub-rule ( 1 )-               (i)  shall not preclude proof by  other  means               that he had information of the order,               (ii)  shall  not affect the  validity  of  the               order. Section  3 of the Defence of India Act enables  the  Central Government,  by  notification in the  Official  Gazette,  to make   such rules as appear to be necessary,.  or  expedient for   securing  the defence of India and civil defence,  the public  safety,  the  maintenance of  public  order  or  the efficient conduct of military operations, or for maintaining supplies  and  services  essential   to   the  life  of  the community.   Sub-s.  (2) mentions various matters  on  which rules  can be made, but this is without prejudice   to   the generality of the powers conferred by sub-s. (1 ).     It  seems  to us that r. 141 (2) is  within  the  powers conferred  by  s.  3  (1 ) of the.  Defence  of  India  Act. The .fact that the rule is contrary to an existing act  does not  matter  because  s.  43 of the  Defence  of  India  Act provides  that "the provisions of this Act or any rule  made thereunder or any order made under any such rule shall  have effect   notwithstanding  anything  inconsistent   therewith contained  in  any enactment other than this Act or  in  any instrument  having effect by virtue of any  enactment  other than this Act."  The section contemplates that the rules may be: inconsistent with existing legislation but by virtue  of s.   43,  if  otherwise.  valid,  they  would  have   effect notwithstanding  that  they are inconsistent  with  existing legislation.   We  use  the   words   "if  otherwise  valid" because  the rules must fall within the  powers given  under s. 3 (1).  Section 3 gives very  wide  powers.  It seems  to us that r. 141 (2) falls within s. 3 because it is essential 274 to the scheme of the Defence of India Rules.  The Rules must necessarily provide for the publication of orders made under the  Rules and they must also provide for proof in  judicial proceedings of the fact of publication.     The  learned  counsel has not been able to show  us  any case  in  which a rule like r. 141(2) has  been  challenged, much  less  declared  ultra vires, both in  England  and  in India.     In  the result the appeal is partly allowed,  the  order of  the High Court maintaining the forfeiture of the  seized stock  of  juar set aside and the rest of the order  of  the High Court maintained. Y.P.                     Appeal partly allowed. 275