Summary
Entry 80 in List 1 of the 7th Sch. to the Constitution of India 1950 corresponding to entry 39 in the Federal List of the Government of India Act, 1935, empowered the Central Legislature inter alia to extend the powers and jurisdiction of members of the police force 'belonging to' any State to any area outside that. State with the consent of 'the State in which such area was situate. Under the Constitution as originally adopted the States in the Indian Union were specified as Part A, B & C States and certain territories as part D territories. By the Constitution (Seventh Amendment Act), 1956 the distinction between Part A & B States was abolished and Part C States and Part D territories came to be described as Union Territories. The Delhi Special Police Establishment Act 25 of 1946 was passed under entry 39 of the Federal List of the Government of India Act, 1935. As adapted in 1950, the long title of the Act referred to Special Police Force 'for the State of Delhi'. After the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Amendment) Act 26 of 1952 the long title referred to a Special Police Force 'in Delhi'. The Adaptation of Laws (No. 3) Order 1956 substituted the words 'Union Territories' in place of Part
'C' States in the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act.On November 6, 1956 Notification No. 7/5/55-AVD was issued by the Central Government under s. 3 of the Act enabling the Special Police Establishment to investigate inter alia offences under ss. 409 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code.By memorandum No. DPE/1260/6554-V, dated July 2, 1960, the Government of Maharashtra purported to express its consent to the extension to the State of Maharashtra of the powers of Delhi Police Establishment to investigate into the offences mentioned in the Central Government Notification aforesaid dated November 6, 1956 and subsequent notifications dated February 12, 1957, June 21, 1957 and August 27, 1957. The appellant company was charged in a complaint filed by Income-tax Officer (Section X Central), Bombay with offences under ss. 409, 477A and 120B read with s. 409 of the Indian Panel Code. 'Me case was registered by the Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment, Delhi and investigation thereof was ordered to be conducted in the State of Maharashtra by an Inspector under the Establishment. The appellant filed a writ 882petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the power of the Special Police Establishment to investigate the case in the State of Maharashtra. The petition being dismissed, an appeal with certificate was filed in this Court. The contentions raised on behalf of the appellant which fell for consideration were : (i) that Act 25 of 1946 when it was made applicable to Union Territories as a result of Adaptation Order No. 3 of 1956 was thereby cut adrift from entry 80 which referred only to 'States' (ii) that the enlargement of the definition of 'State' in s. 3(58) of the General Clauses Act to include Union Territories as respects the period after the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution was not effectively made by Adaptation Order (No. 1) 1956 because the power of the President under Art. 372(2) expired in 1953; (iii) that Act 25 of 1947 as amended in 1952 purposed to create a special police force in Delhi, and the Act was not thus not in accord with entry 80 in which the phrase used was 'belonging to any State,"; (iv) that the consent of the Maharashtra Government to the Central Government Notification dated November 6, 1956 extending to the State of Maharashtra, the power of the State Police Establishment to investigate cases under s. 409 and s. 477A of the Indian Penal Code was not proved to have been obtained; (v) that in, any case no fresh consent ,for the investigation of these offences was obtained when by Notification dated February 18, 1963 the Delhi Special Police establishment was empowered to investigate in Maharashtra certain other offences in addition to those mentioned in the earlier notifications.HELD : (i) After the amendment of s. 3(58) of ',he General Clauses Act by the Adaptation Order (No. 1) of 1956 the word'State' in entry 80 of List I must be read as respects any period after the commencement of the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution so as to include 'Union Territories'.Therefore, members of a police 'force belonging to the Union Territory of Delhi could have their power and jurisdiction extended to another State with the consent of the Government of that State. Adaptation Order No. 3 of 1956 did not have the effect of taking Act 25 of 1946 outside the ambit of, entry 80. [890 C](ii) The power of the President under Art. 372(2) to adapt and modify laws no doubt expired in 1953. But a fresh power equal and analogous to that under Art. 372(2) was conferred on President by Art. 372A which was introduced by the Constitution Seventh Amendment Act, 1956. Therefore, the amendment of the definition of 'State' in s. 3(58) of the General Clauses Act by the Adaptation of Laws (No. 1) Order, was valid and had the effect of including Union Territories in entry 80 of the Union List [890 H; 891 F-G; 892 D-E]Ramkishore Sen & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [1966] 1S.C.R. 430 at 438 and T. M. Kanniyan V. Income-tax Officer, Pondicherry & Anr. [1968] 2 S.C.R. 103 at 108, referred to.Ram Kishore Sen's case to Art. 372 held per incuriam.(iii) Provisions of law must be read as far as possible with a view to their validity and not to render them invalid.The expression 'belonging to' in entry 80 only conveys the meaning that it is a police force constituted and functioning in one area, which may be authorised to function in another area. The change 'from "for" to "in" made in the long title of Act 25 of 1946 by the amendment of 1952 makes no difference because both expressions fit with the meaning of the phrase 'belonging to' in the entry. In this way the Delhi Special Police Establishment means a police force constituted and functioning in the Union Territories in Delhi and it could not be said that Act 25 of 1946 as amended in 1952 was not in second with entry 80. [893 E-F]883 (iV)There is a presumption of regularity of official acts but even apart 'from it the memorandum of the Government of Maharashtra dated July 2, 1960 and the affidavit filed by the Under Secretary to the Government clearly established that the consent of the Government of Maharashtra to the notifications of he Central Government mentioned therein was duly given. [888 F](v)If by the notification dated February 18, 1963 ss. 409 and 477A Indian Penal Code had been newly added, consent of the Government of Maharashtra would have been necessary: But that Government had on more than one occasion consented to the investigation in that State of those offences, and no fresh consent in respect of them was therefore necessary.[889 A-B]See the full content of this document
Extract
Management Of Advance Insurance Co. Ltd. VS. Shri Gurudasmal & Ors.
PETITIONER: MANAGEMENT OF ADVANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD.Vs.RESPONDENT: SHRI GURUDASMAL & ORS.DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/03/1970BENCH: HIDAYATULLAH, M. (CJ)BENCH: HIDAYATULLAH, M. (CJ)SHELAT, J.M.VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A.GROVER, A.N.RAY, A.N.CITATION: 1970 AIR 1126 1970 SCR (3) 881 1969 SCC (1) 633CITATOR INFO : RF 1976 SC1856 (7)ACT: Constitution of India, 1950, 7th Sch. List 1 Entry 80-Word'State' in Entry-Whether includes 'Union Territories' after passing of Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956--Adaptation of Laws (No. 1) Order 1956 enlarging definition of 'State' in s. 3(58) of General Clauses Act, 1897 to include Union Territories-Effect of Order-Power of President to pass Order after expiry of period specified in Art. 372(2) of Constitution-Power is sustained under new Art. 372-A.Special Police Establishment Act 25 of 1946 as amended in 1952--Purporting to create Special Police Force "in Delhi'- Such force whether "belonging to" a 'State' within meaning of Entry 80-Consent of State Government to extension of powers of Special Police Establishment--Proof-Consent already given in respect of certain offences subsists after new offences added by fresh notification.JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2258 of 1968.Appeal from the judgment and order dated October 18, 1968 of the Delhi High Court,-Himachal...
See the full content of this document