Case Note & Summary
The case involved a criminal investigation initiated against the office bearers of a sugar concern under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, for allegedly failing to pay the price of purchased sugarcane within 14 days of delivery, in violation of sub-rule (3) of rule 3 of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1955. The appellants challenged the investigation by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the Patna High Court, which refused to interfere. Aggrieved, they appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave. The primary question was whether the investigation was legal. The appellants advanced six main contentions: first, that sub-rule (3) was ultra vires Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act because the Act dealt only with foodstuffs, not food crops like sugarcane; second, that the Bihar Sugar Factories Control Act, 1937 already regulated sugarcane price, excluding the central order; third, that Parliament lacked legislative competence as sugarcane falls under agriculture, a State subject; fourth, that the order violated Article 19(1) fundamental rights; fifth, that Section 11 of the Essential Commodities Act barred cognizance without prior sanction; and sixth, that the complaint did not disclose a cognizable offence, so the police could not investigate. The Supreme Court analyzed each contention. It held that under Section 2(a) and 2(b) of the Essential Commodities Act, foodstuffs included sugarcane and food-crops included sugarcane, so Section 3 validly covered cultivation and sale. The Court relied on Ch. Tika Ramji v. State of U.P. to confirm that sugarcane is an essential commodity. The Bihar Act, being a pre-Constitution law, stood altered by Parliament under Article 372. Parliament was competent under Entry 33 of List III (production, supply and distribution of foodstuffs) to legislate on sugarcane. There was no violation of Article 19(1) because no fundamental right permits a buyer to delay or avoid payment for goods purchased. The objection under Section 11 was held premature since no court had taken cognizance. Finally, the offence being punishable with three years' imprisonment was a cognizable offence under Section 4(1)(f) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Second Schedule, so police investigation was lawful. The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the investigation, confirming the validity of the Sugarcane (Control) Order and the legislative competence of Parliament. All pleas were rejected.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Legislative Competence - Parliament competent to legislate on foodstuffs including sugarcane - Constitution of India, 1950, Entry 33 of List III - The Supreme Court held that sugarcane falls under foodstuffs and food-crops, and Parliament had legislative competence to enact the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Held that the Act and the Sugarcane Control Order were valid. (pp. 675-677) B) Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Scope of 'essential commodity' - Section 3 validly regulates cultivation and sale of sugarcane - Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Sections 2(a), 2(b), 3(1), 3(2)(b),(c) - The Court observed that foodstuffs include sugarcane, and section 3(2) empowers the Central Government to control price and cultivation of food-crops. Held that sub-rule (3) of rule 3 was validly issued. (p. 675) C) Interpretation of Statutes - Pre-Constitution Legislation - Bihar Sugar Factories Control Act, 1937 if inconsistent stands altered - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 372 - The Court held that a pre-Constitution State Act inconsistent with a subsequent central law stands altered by a competent legislature. Held that the Bihar Act could not override the Sugarcane Control Order. (p. 676-677) D) Constitutional Law - Fundamental Rights - No fundamental right to not pay or delay payment for goods - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 19(1) - The Court held that Article 19(1) does not confer a fundamental right on a buyer to not pay the price of purchased goods or to pay at will. Held that the impugned order did not violate fundamental rights. (p. 677) E) Criminal Procedure - Cognizable Offence - Offence punishable with three years imprisonment is cognizable - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Section 4(1)(f), Second Schedule - The Court held that the offence in the complaint fell under the Second Schedule of the CrPC and was a cognizable offence; police had the power to investigate. (p. 677) F) Criminal Procedure - Cognizance - Plea under Section 11 of Essential Commodities Act premature - Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Section 11 - The Court held that the contention that no cognizance could be taken without previous sanction was premature as no court had yet taken cognizance. Held that the investigation could proceed. (p. 677)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the investigation against the appellants under sub-rule (3) of rule 3 of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1955 read with s. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 was in accordance with law
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the validity of the investigation. It confirmed that the Essential Commodities Act covers sugarcane, sub-rule (3) was validly made, Parliament had legislative competence, no fundamental right was violated, section 11 plea was premature, and the offence was cognizable.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Foodstuffs in Essential Commodities Act includes sugarcane
- Parliament competent under Entry 33 of List III to legislate on sugarcane
- Pre-Constitution state law altered by competent authority under Art. 372
- No fundamental right under Art. 19(1) to delay payment for goods purchased
- Offence under rule 3(3) punishable with three years imprisonment is cognizable under CrPC s.4(1)(f)
- Section 11 plea premature as no court taken cognizance
