Skip to content


ShiravanThe Ananda Rao Vs. State of Mysore - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLabour and Industrial
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Revision Petition No. 26 of 1961
Judge
Reported in(1962)IILLJ262Kant
ActsMysore Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 - Sections 11(1), 45 and 45(1); Part B States (Laws) Act, 1951 - Sections 6; Weekly Holidays Act, 1942 - Sections 3, 3(1) and 9; Mysore Shops and Establishments Rules - Rules 37(11) and 40; Constitution of India - Articles 246(2) and 372(1)
AppellantShiravanThe Ananda Rao
RespondentState of Mysore
Excerpt:
- code of criminal procedure, 1973 [c.a. no. 2/1974]. section 468: [dr. k. bhakthavatsala, j] offence under section 406 of i.p.c., - bar to take cognizance, after lapse of more than 14 years on facts, held, the complainant is not claiming exclusion of time in computing the period of limitation under section 470 cr.p.c. further, the trial court has not passed any order under section 473 cr.p.c. regarding extension of period of limitation. hence, taking cognizance for the offence punishable under section 406 of ipc against the accused by the magistrate is bad in law. impugned order was quashed. - under these circumstances, i am satisfied that s......act stands repealed as from the date on which the part b states (laws) act came into force. the weekly holidays act, 1942 (central act xviii of 1942), was one of the acts which were extended to part b states by the part b states (laws) act, 1951. the relevant portion of s. 6 of the part b states (laws) act, 1951, is as follows : '6. if immediately before the appointed day, there is in force in any part b state any law corresponding to any of the acts or ordinances now extended to that state, that law shall, save as otherwise expressly provided in this act, stand repealed.' 3. the contention of the learned advocate for the petitioner is that s. 11(1) of the act corresponds in every particular to s. 3(1) of the holidays act and that therefore the said s. 11(1) stands repealed by virtue.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. The petitioner in this case has been convicted for an offence punishable under S. 45 of the Mysore Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to also as the Mysore Act), read together with S. 11(1) of the same Act and he had been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5 and in default to undergo two days' simple imprisonment. He has also been convicted for an offence punishable under rule 40 read with rule 37(11) of the rules framed under the Mysore Act and he has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5 and in default to undergo two days' simple imprisonment. Sri Raghunathan has appeared for the petitioner and Sri B. S. Keshava Ayyangar, the learned High Court Government Pleader, has appeared for the State.

2. The learned advocate for the petitioner has urged only one contention before me. It is to the effect that the conviction under S. 45 read with S. 11(1) of the Mysore Act cannot be sustained in law. His argument is that by virtue of S. 6 of the Part B States (Laws) Act, 1951, S. 11(1) of the Mysore Act stands repealed as from the date on which the Part B States (Laws) Act came into force. The Weekly Holidays Act, 1942 (Central Act XVIII of 1942), was one of the Acts which were extended to Part B States by the Part B States (Laws) Act, 1951. The relevant portion of S. 6 of the Part B States (Laws) Act, 1951, is as follows :

'6. If immediately before the appointed day, there is in force in any Part B State any law corresponding to any of the Acts or Ordinances now extended to that State, that law shall, save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, stand repealed.'

3. The contention of the learned advocate for the petitioner is that S. 11(1) of the Act corresponds in every particular to S. 3(1) of the Holidays Act and that therefore the said S. 11(1) stands repealed by virtue of S. 6 of the Part B States (Laws) Act.

4. Section 11(1) of the Mysore Act is as follows :

'11. (1) Every shop shall remain entirely closed on one day of the week which day shall be specified by the shopkeeper in a notice permanently exhibited in a conspicuous place in the ship; and the day so specified shall not be altered by the shopkeeper more often than once in three months.'

5. Section 3 of the Weekly Holidays Act, 1942, is as follows :

'3. (1) Every shop shall remain entirely closed on one day of the week, which day shall be specified by the shopkeeper in a notice permanently exhibited in a conspicuous place in the shop.

(2) The day so specified shall not be altered by the shopkeeper more often than once in three months.'

6. It will be noticed that, word for word, the language of S. 3 of the Weekly Holidays Act is the same a the language of S. 11(1) of the Mysore Act. There is no dispute that S. 11(1) of the Mysore Act is a law which was in force in the Part B State of Mysore, immediately prior to the date on which the Part B States (Laws) At came into force. It was on 1 April, 1951 that the Part B States (Laws) Act came into force; that was the day which was fixed as the 'appointed day' on which that Act had to come into force. The identity is not merely between the language of S. 11(1) of the Mysore Act and the language of S. 3 of the Weekly Holidays Act. The penalty that is provided under S. 45(1) of the Mysore Act for contravention of S. 11(1) of that Act is a fine which extends to Rs. 25 for a first offence and which for a second offences may extend to Rs. 250. Section 9 of the Weekly Holiday's Act which provides the penalty for contravention of S. 3 Prescribes a fine which may extend Rs. 25 in the case of a first offence and which in the case of a second or subsequent offence may extend to Rs. 250. Therefore, the punishment that is prescribed under the Weekly Holidays Act for the contravention of the Provisions of S. 3 of the Weekly Holidays Act is the same as the punishment that is provided under the Mysore Shops and Establishments Act for a contravention of S. 11(1) of that Act. Under the circumstances Sri Keshava Ayyangar has not contended that S. 11(1) of the Mysore Act is not a law corresponding to S. 3 of the Weekly Holidays Act for the purposes of S. 6 of the Part B States (Laws) Act.

7. The alleged contravention by the petitioner of S. 11(1) of the Mysore Act was at Thirthahalli where the petitioner's shop is situated. It is stated that the provisions of the Weekly Holidays Act have not been brought into force in Thirthahalli town by the issue of a notification under S. 1(3). The argument of Sri Keshava a Ayyangar is that when the provisions of the Weekly Holidays Act, 1942, had not been brought into force in Thirthahalli town, the repeal under S. 6 of the Part B States (Laws) Act of S. 11(1) of the Mysore Shops and Establishments Act, did not become operative so far as Thirthahalli town is concerned. This is not a correct contention. The repeal under the said S. 6 is not made dependent on the issue of any notification under any Act extended under the Part B States (Laws) Act. As urged by the learned Advocate for the petitioner, it is clear from the language of S. 6 of the Part B States (Laws Act, that the corresponding law would stand repealed as from the date on which the Part B States (Laws) Act came into force. The Mysore Shops and Establishments Act, 1948, was a law which had been enacted in the Princely State of Mysore Prior to the Constitution coming into force. By virtue of Art. 372(1) of the Constitution, this Act also continued to be in force in the territory of Part B State of Mysore. The continuation under Art. 372(1) of the laws in force, is subject to alteration, repeal or amendment by a competent legislature or competent authority. Therefore there cannot be any doubt that the Mysore Shops and Establishments Act, though a pre-Constitution law, is subject to alteration, amendment or repeal by a competent legislature. The Weekly Holidays Act is a piece of legislation which Parliament was competent to enact under entry 24 of List III - Concurrent List of the Sch. VII - read with Art. 246(2) of the Constitution. The effect of the extension under the Part B States (Laws) Act, 1951, is as if Parliament enacted for Part B States the Acts specified in the schedule to the Part B State (Laws) Act. As from the appointed day, namely, 1 April, 1951, the Weekly Holidays Acts was applied by Parliamentary legislation to the Part B State of Mysore. In applying such a law which the Parliament was competent to make, it was enacted as a necessary measure, in S. 6 of the Part B States (Laws) Act, that as from the appointed day the corresponding law in force in a Part B State immediately before the appointed day, should stand repealed. Under these circumstances, I am satisfied that S. 11(1) of the Mysore Act stood repealed as from 1 April 1961, consequent on the Part B States (Laws) Act coming into force.

8. Therefore, the conviction of the petitioner for an offence punishable under S. 45 of the Act read together with S. 11(1) of the Act cannot be sustained. The conviction and sentence of the petitioner for the said offence are set aside. The fine amount in respect of this offence, if it has been recovered from the petitioner, shall be refunded to him.

9. But the position of the petitioner is different as regards the conviction under rule 40 read together with rule 37(11) of the rules framed under the Mysore Act. Sub-rule (11) of rule 37 requires every employer to maintain a visit book in which the inspector or other competent authority visiting the establishment may record his remarks. The maintenance of such a visit book is not confined merely to the requirements of S. 11(1) of the Mysore Act. The maintenance of such a visit book would be necessary also for other purposes to which that Act relates. Therefore, the fact that S. 11(1) of the Mysore Act stands repealed does not absolve the petitioner from the liability to maintain the visit book under sub-rule (11) of rule 37. There can be no doubt in regard to the fact of the petitioner, not having maintained a visit book; it is clear that he contravened the said sub-rule (11) and was therefore liable to be punished under rule 40. The conviction of the petitioner under rule 40 read together with rule 37(11) is not liable to be interfered with. This revision petition, in so far as it relates to this latter offence, fails.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //