# MANGI LAL v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

- **Citation:** [1970] 2 S.C.R. 270
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1969-09-09
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 193 of 1967
- **Bench:** S. M. Sikri, G. K. Mitter, P. Jaganmohan Reddy
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/mangi-lal-v-state-of-maharashtra-4782
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

B
Maharashtra /war (Restriction on purchase and sale and control ,of
move111ent) Order, I96~Provision for forfeiting packages, covering and
receptacles In-If authorises fo11feiture of Juar-Defence of India Rules,
r. 125(a)-Rule if ultra vires as contravening s. 114 Evidence Act.
The appellant was convicted and sentenced under r. 125(a) Defence
of India Rules for contravening cl. 4(b) of the Maharashtra Jwar (Res·
C
triction on purchases ond sale and control of movement) Order, 1964,
for contravening Buldana District Price Control Order, 1965; and for
contravening cl. 3 of the Maharashtra Foodgrains (Declaration of Stock)
(Second)
Order, 1964.
The
Magistrate
furthec
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 ti1c conviction and sentence under cJ. 3 of the
Maharashtra Food Graios (Declaration of Stock) Order, and maintained
D
the other convictions
in an appeal to this Court the appellant conte!lded
that (i) the High Court having set aside the conviction under cl. 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 sa1e and control of movement)
Order, 1964, 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
I
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. Tue 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
0f juar
are found.
This
does not enable the Court to order forfeiture of juar.
The Buldana
F
District Juar (Price, Control) Order authorises the Collector to
seize
stocks but does not enable the Court to forfeit juar. [274 HJ
(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 exist;ng
Act does not matter because s. 43 of the Defence of India Act provides
that "the provisions of this' Act or any rule ma0e, thereunder or any
order made under anv such rule shall have effect notwithstanding anything
G
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-GJ'

## Text

270
MANGI LAL
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
September 9, 1969
A
(S. M. SIKRI, G. K. MITTER AND P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JJ.]
B
Maharashtra /war (Restriction on purchase and sale and control ,of
move111ent) Order, I96~Provision for forfeiting packages, covering and
receptacles In-If authorises fo11feiture of Juar-Defence of India Rules,
r. 125(a)-Rule if ultra vires as contravening s. 114 Evidence Act.
The appellant was convicted and sentenced under r. 125(a) Defence
of India Rules for contravening cl. 4(b) of the Maharashtra Jwar (Res·
C
triction on purchases ond sale and control of movement) Order, 1964,
for contravening Buldana District Price Control Order, 1965; and for
contravening cl. 3 of the Maharashtra Foodgrains (Declaration of Stock)
(Second)
Order, 1964.
The
Magistrate
furthec
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 ti1c conviction and sentence under cJ. 3 of the
Maharashtra Food Graios (Declaration of Stock) Order, and maintained
D
the other convictions
in an appeal to this Court the appellant conte!lded
that (i) the High Court having set aside the conviction under cl. 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 sa1e and control of movement)
Order, 1964, 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
I
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. Tue 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
0f juar
are found.
This
does not enable the Court to order forfeiture of juar.
The Buldana
F
District Juar (Price, Control) Order authorises the Collector to
seize
stocks but does not enable the Court to forfeit juar. [274 HJ
(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 exist;ng
Act does not matter because s. 43 of the Defence of India Act provides
that "the provisions of this' Act or any rule ma0e, thereunder or any
order made under anv such rule shall have effect notwithstanding anything
G
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-GJ'
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.
H
,.
MANG! LAL V. MAHARASHTRA (Sikri, J,)
271
A
G. N. Dikshit, S. K. Bisaria and R. N. Sachthey, for the
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
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 followmg two pomts :
( 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 pqint are as follows : Certain
shpherds belonging to a wandering' tribe
~ere apprehended
by the police one night while they were carrymg . 12
bag~ages
containing juar on tile backs of 12 horses.
On bemg ~uest1on.ed
they informed the police that they had purchased all this quunllty
of juar from the appellant at the rate of 78 paise per kg.
On
this information the police raided the houses of the
appellwt
and forther found 34 quintals and 63 kgs of juar.
The appellant
had two houses at Janephal and in one house 3 quintal;
and
48 kgs while in the other house 31 quintals and 18 kgs. of juar
was found, which was sei7ed 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 on 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
~nc 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 an~ fine of Rs. 500/- in default further rigorous imprisonment for six. months.
The sentences of imprisonment on
each
eou~were directed to run concurrently.
The Magistrate further
orde d that the maddemal befo:·2 the Court be confiscated to the
Gover ment.
The appellant ~I?pealed unsuccessfully to the Sessions Judge.
He then filed a rev1s1on before the High, Court.
The High Court
272
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1970] 2 S.C.R.
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 9f the juar seized from the house of the
appellant because, he says, the Maharashtra Jowar (Restriction
on Purchase and Sal.e 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 or any order made under this rule, he >hall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which may
extend to t'.1ree 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
ord~r 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).
'fhe only provision contaoined 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.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
MANG! LAL ". MAHARASHTRA (Sikri, J.)
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 cor.tained in section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act. Rule
141 ( 2) is in the following terms :
"141(2) If in the course of any judicial proceedings
a question arises whether a person was duly· informed
cf an order made in pursuance of these Rules, compliance with sub-rule (I), 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 (I )-
( 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
E
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 oper:1tions, or for maintaining supplies and services essential
to
the
life cf the community.
Sub-s. (2) mentions various matters en
which rules can be made, but this is without prejudice
to
the
F
generality of the powers conferred by sub-s. (I).
G
H
It seems to us that r. 141 (2) is within the powers conferred
by s. 3 (I) of the Defence of India Act.
The .fact that the rule
is contrary to an existing act does not matter because s. 43 of rhe
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 !Javing 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
inFonsistent with existing legislation.
We use the
words
"if
ot;herwise 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) faUs withins. 3 because it is essential
274
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1970] 2 S.C.R.
to the scheme of the Defence of India Rl)les.
The Rules must
A
necessarily provide for the publication of orders made under the
Rules and they mus: 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
B
declared ultra vires, both in England and in India.
In the result the appeal is partly allowed, the or\)er 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.