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

PETITIONER: STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: RAMESHWAR RATHOD

DATE OF JUDGMENT10/07/1990

BENCH: MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (CJ) BENCH: MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (CJ) SAIKIA, K.N. (J)

CITATION:  1990 AIR 1849            1990 SCR  (3) 263  1990 SCC  (4)  21        JT 1990 (3)   298  1990 SCALE  (2)88

ACT:     Essential  Commodities  Act, 1955:  Section  6A--Whether prospective or retrospective.     Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898/1973: Sections 516A and 523/451 and 457--Whether criminal court has jurisdiction  to return vehicle seized by police under Essential  Commodities Act, 1955 pending final decision of criminal case.     Interpretation of Statutes: Rule of construction--Provi- sion in statute normally prospective--Could be retrospective depending on nature of statute and purpose of provision.

HEADNOTE:     The respondent’s truck was seized by the police on  10th December,  1974 for alleged contravention of the  provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 on the night of  15th March,  1972. The respondent fried applications  before  the High  Court for quashing the orders of the  Judicial  Magis- trate  First  Class  and the Sessions  Judge  rejecting  his request for the return of the vehicle on furnishing security and  also  for quashing the order of the Collector  and  re- straining him from proceeding further in pursuance of notice issued  by him under Section 6B of the Act for  confiscation of the vehicle or directing the District Judicial Magistrate to dispose of his application in accordance with law.     Allowing  the applications and directing the  return  of the vehicle, the High Court held that Section 6A of the Act, as amended by Section 4 of the Amendment-Act, 1974 was  only prospective and that the Criminal Court had jurisdiction  to entertain  applications under Section 523 read with 516A  of the  Criminal Procedure Code, for the return of the  vehicle seized by the police pending final decision of the  criminal case. Dismissing the appeal by the State, this Court,     HELD:  1.1  The normal rule of construction  is  that  a provision in a statute is prospective but not retrospective. However, in the case of statutes which are merely declarato- ry or which relate to only matters of 264  procedure or of evidence, it may have retrospective  effect if  there  are indications to that effect  or  the  manifest purpose compels one to construe the Act as such. [265G-H]

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

   1.2  The High Court examined Section 4 of the  Essential Commodities  (Amendment) Act, 1974 alongwith Section  6A  of the Principal Act and came to the conclusion that there  was no retrospective effect. Not only that there were no specif- ic words to indicate the provisions of retrospective effect, but the positive provisions of sub-section (2) of Section  1 were to the effect that the amendment must he deemed to have come  into effect on a particular date. The High Court  was, therefore, right in holding that Section 4 of the  Amendment Act,  1974  was  only  prospective  and  not  retrospective. [266B-C]     In the instant case, the contravention of the provisions of  the Act is alleged to have occured on 15th March,  1972, whereas the vehicle was seized on th December, 1974.  There- fore, the provisions of Section 6A of the Essential Commodi- ties  Act,  1955 as it stood on 15th March, 1972  only  were applicable  to the present case and Section 4 of the  Amend- ment  Act, 1974 could not he applied as the Act was  not  in force on the date of offence. [266D]     2.  Normally,  under the Criminal  Procedure  Code,  the Criminal Courts of the country have the jurisdiction and the ouster of the ordinary criminal court in respect of a  crime can only he inferred if that is the irresistible  conclusion flowing  from necessary implication of the new Act. In  view of  the language used and in the context in which this  lan- guage  has been used, the High Court was right in coming  to the conclusion that the Criminal Court retained jurisdiction and  was not completely ousted of the  jurisdiction.  [266H; 267A-B]

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.  679  of 1978.     From  the  Judgment and Order dated 30.9.  1976  of  the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc. Petition No. 63 of 1976. S.K. Agnihotri for the Appellants. Nemo for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 265     SABYASACHI  MUKHARJI, CJ. This is an appeal  by  special leave  from  the  judgment and order of the  High  Court  of Madhya Pradesh, dated 30th September, 1976 in  Miscellaneous Petition No. 63 of 1976.     The respondent was the owner of a truck which was seized by the Police Sorwa on 10th December, 1974 for alleged  con- travention  of the provisions of the  Essential  Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter called ’the Act’) in connection  with Crime No. 42 of 1972. The respondent made applications under Articles  226 and 227 of the Constitution of India,  to  the High  Court to quash the orders of the  Judicial  Magistrate First  Class, Alirajpur and the Sessions Judge,  Jhabua  re- spectively  rejecting.  his request for the  return  of  the vehicle on furnishing security and to quash the order of the District Collector and restrain him from proceeding  further in pursuance of the notice issued by him under Section 68 of the  Act for confiscation of the vehicle and ask for  return of the vehicle, or in the alternative to direct the District Judicial Magistrate to dispose of the application in accord- ance with law     The  High  Court after setting out the  facts  addressed itself to three questions, namely, (1) whether Section 6A of the  Essential Commodities Act as amended by  the  Amendment Act  No.  30 of 1974 was prospective or  retrospective?  (2)

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

whether  in the facts and circumstances, the criminal  Court had  jurisdiction to entertain an application under  section 523  read with section 516A of the Criminal  Procedure  Code for  the return of the vehicle seized by the Police  pending final  decision  of the criminal case? and (3)  whether  the respondent was entitled on the merits for the return of  the vehicle as prayed for?     On  the first question, the High Court was of  the  view that it was a fundamental rule of law that no Statute should be construed to have a retrospective operation unless such a construction appeared very clearly in the terms of the  Act, or  arose by necessary implication, direct or indirect.  The High  Court  referred to several decisions which it  is  not necessary  for us to refer to. It is well settled  that  the normal rule of construction is that a provision in a statute is  prospective but not retrospective, however, in the  case of statutes which are merely declaratory or which relate  to only matters of procedure or of evidence, it may have retro- spective  effect if there are indications to that effect  or the  manifest  purpose compels one to construe  the  Act  as such.     On  an  examination of the statute  and  the  provisions referred  to herein, the High Court found that there was  no retroactivity. We are 266 of the opinion that for the reasons given by the High Court, it  is  difficult to accept the position that there  was  no retroactivity. Indeed, Mr Deshpande appearing for the appel- lant  did not seriously challenge this finding of  the  High Court. There is no dispute in this case that the  contraven- tion  of the provisions of the Act is alleged to have  taken place in the instant case on the night of 15th March,  1972. The  vehicle  was seized on 10th December,  1974.  The  High Court  examined Section 4 of the Amendment Act,  along  with Section  6A of the Principal Act and came to the  conclusion that there was no retrospective effect. We are of the  opin- ion that the High Court was right in holding that Section  4 of  the  Amendment Act, 1974 was only  prospective  and  not retrospective. Not only that there were no specific words to indicate  the  provisions of retrospective effect,  but  the positive provisions of sub-section (2) of section 1 were  to the effect that the amendment must be deemed to have come in effect on a particular date, is a pointer and that puts  the matter  beyond  doubt. The provisions of section  6A  as  it stood  on  15th  March, 1972 only  were  applicable  to  the present case and section 4 of the Amendment Act, 1974  could not,  therefore, be applied as the Act was not in  force  on the  date of offence. The challenge to the High Court  order on this aspect cannot, therefore, be entertained.     It was next contended by the respondent before the  High Court that the Criminal Court was empowered under section  7 of  the Act to confiscate the vehicle after due  and  proper inquiry  and therefore the proceedings by the District  Col- lector under section 6A and Section 6B of the Act should  be quashed.  Reliance was placed on several decisions  and  au- thorities.  Our attention was drawn to the decision  of  the Mysore High Court in the case of The State v. Abdul Rasheed, AIR [1967] Mysore 231; Sri Bharat Mahey & Ors. v. The  State of U. P. & Ors., [1975] Crl. L.J 890 as well as the decision of  the  learned  Single Judge in State of  M.P.  v.  Basant Kumar,  [1972] JLJ Short Note No. 99. On a consideration  of the relevant authorities, the High Court came to the conclu- sion  that the criminal Court had jurisdiction to deal  with the  matter. Mr. Deshpande sought to argue that in  view  of the  enactment  of the provisions of Section 6A as  well  as

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

section  7 of the Act, it cannot be held that  the  criminal Court continued to retain jurisdiction. He submitted that in view  of  the  enactment of these provisions,  it  would  be useless to hold that the criminal Court continued to  retain jurisdiction, otherwise the very purpose of enacting section 6A  read with section 7 would be defeated. We are,  however, unable to accept this contention because normally under  the Criminal Procedure Code, the Criminal Courts of the  country have the jurisdiction and the ouster of 267 the  ordinary criminal Court in respect of a crime can  only be  inferred if that is the irresistible conclusion  flowing from  necessary implication of the new Act., In view of  the language used and in the context in which this language  has been  used,  we are of the opinion that the High  Court  was right  in coming to the conclusion that the  Criminal  Court retained  jurisdiction and was not completely ousted of  the jurisdiction. In that view of the matter, the High Court was therefore right in passing the order under consideration and in  the  facts and circumstances of the case to  return  the vehicle to the respondent on furnishing the security In  the premise  the appeal must fail and is dismissed.  There  win, however, be no order as to costs. N.P.V.                                   Appeal dismissed. 268