Skip to content


Sham Lal Etc. Etc. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectExcise;Constitution
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petn. Nos. 4154 and 4209, etc. of 1978
Judge
Reported inAIR1978SC1484; [1979]1SCR159
ActsPunjab Excise Act, 1914 - Sections 59(f)(v)
AppellantSham Lal Etc. Etc.
RespondentUnion of India (Uoi) and ors.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
.....of dowry -what constitutes - accused, sister-in-law having no issues - she was insisting deceased to give her son in adoption to her held, such demand is not demand of dowry so as to attract the provisions of section 498a. - 1. the state of haryana, like the other states of india, has on its statute book a legislation for liquor regulation and fiscal levy. 3. one cautionary signal we would like to sound......of alcohol, rule 37 was amended in haryana making the 1st and the 7th of every month a holiday for liquor shops. this rule and the statutory source of power to make rules, namely, section 59(f)(v) of the punjab excise act, 1914, have been challenged before us on a variety of grounds and we have heard counsel on both sides. the arguments being identical with those already considered by us in the punjab batch of writ petitions that judgment governs these cases also, and therefore we annex it to this judgment and we do not think it necessary to launch on any additional discussion.2. a few other submissions, which hardly merit mention were made we do not deal with them.3. one cautionary signal we would like to sound. haryana and punjab are neighbouring states and unless identical days of.....
Judgment:

Krishna Iyer, J.

1. The State of Haryana, like the other States of India, has on its statute book a legislation for liquor regulation and fiscal levy. In fact, it is the same as the Punjab Excise Act, 1914. To bring in progressive restriction in the sale of alcohol, Rule 37 was amended in Haryana making the 1st and the 7th of every month a holiday for liquor shops. This rule and the statutory source of power to make rules, namely, Section 59(f)(v) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, have been challenged before us on a variety of grounds and we have heard counsel on both sides. The arguments being identical with those already considered by us in the Punjab batch of writ petitions that judgment governs these cases also, and therefore we annex it to this judgment and we do not think it necessary to launch on any additional discussion.

2. A few other submissions, which hardly merit mention were made we do not deal with them.

3. One cautionary signal we would like to sound. Haryana and Punjab are neighbouring States and unless identical days of teetotalism for the liquor shops are declared in both States, the exercise in prohibition will prove futile, at least in the border districts. If the days are different in the two States, there will be a massive trek of the drinking population from the border districts of one State to the other, thus defeating the statutory purpose. We hope that liquor lobby notwithstanding, the State, will streamline the 'dry' days in both the States.

4. For reasons given in writ petition Nos. 4021-4022 of 78 etc., we dismiss the present batch of writ petitions with costs. (One hearing fee).


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