1999 ALL MR (Cri) 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)
V.K. BARDE, J.
Purthviraj Chandrakant Shinde & Ors. Vs. The State Of Maharashtra & Ors.
Criminal Writ Petition No. 302 of 1999
26th August, 1999
Petitioner Counsel: SHRI C.R. DESHPANDE
Respondent Counsel: SHRI P.B. VARALE, Additional Public Prosecutor
(A) Essential Commodities Act (1955), (As amended by Act 18 of 1981), S.10A - Offences under - Bailable or non-bailable - As Act 18 of 1981 no more in force - Amendment to S.10A by 1981 Act stands deleted - However it does not mean that all offences under the 1955 Act become bailable. (Paras 5,6)
(B) Essential Commodities Act (1955), S.10A - Criminal P.C. (1973) - Offences under - Whether bailable or non-bailable - No provision in 1955 Act classifying offences as bailable or non-bailable - Question to be decided on basis of quantum of punishment and as per the provisions of Criminal P.C. (Para 7)
(C) Interpretation of Statutes - Special Penal statute - No provision in statute classifying offences as bailable or non-bailable - Provisions of Criminal Procedure Code (1973) to be applied to decide whether offence bailable or not. (Para 6)
(D) Essential Commodities Act (1955), S.7 (1)(a)(ii) - Criminal P.C. (1973), Sch.I, Appendix 'A' r/w. S.2(a) - Offence under - As sentence of punishment extends to imprisonment upto 7 years - Offence non-bailable. (Para 7)
JUDGMENT
BARDE, J. :- Heard Shri C.R. Deshpande, Counsel for the petitioners, and Shri P.B. Varale, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the respondents,
2. It is the contention of the petitioners, that the offences under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, are bailable offences because the amendment which was carried out in the Act, by Act 18 of 1981 was for a fixed period. That period has expired and, therefore, now the specially inserted word 'non-bailable' in Section 10A is not there in the Act and, therefore, offence becomes bailable offence.
3. Here it is necessary to note the changes which have taken place in Section 10A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. In the beginning, Section 10A was providing that the offences under the Act to be cognizable and bailable. However, by the Act 30 of 1974, amendment was effected. The words 'and bailable' were deleted. So, there remained the provision that the offences under the Act to tbe cognizable.
4. Obviously, when no provision is made under the special Act, with respect to whether the offences would be bailable or non-bailable, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, are attracted. So, the offences under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, became bailable or non-bailable as per the provisions under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, depending upon provision regarding punishment prescribed under the Act.
5. However, in the year 1981, Act 18 of 1981 was passed to amend certain provisions of the Act. Under the Act 18 of 1981, the offences were made non-bailable by amending Section 10A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Act 18 of 1981 was at the first instance,for a period of five years. Then, the period was extended upto 10 years. Again by effecting amendment, by Ordinance No.12 of 1992, the period was extended to 15 years. That means, the amended provisions were to remain in force for a period of 15 years from 1-9-1982, the date on which the Act 18 of 1981 came into force. There is no further amending Act or Ordinance to extend the period of Act 18 of 1981 beyond the first period of 15 years. So, so far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, that now the Act 18 of 1981 is not in force and the amendment stands deleted automatically, is quite correct.
6. But merely because the words "and non-bailable" which were inserted in the amending Act 18 of 1981 stand deleted, it will not be correct to say that all the offences under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, would be bailable. When the special Act is not making any provision in this respect, then the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, are required to be made applicable and so, the position which there during the period from 1974 to 1981 is restored and the offences would be bailable or non-bailable as per the quantum of punishment provided under the Act.
7. It is admitted position that in all these three Criminal Writ Petitions, the offences alleged against the present petitioners do not fall under Clause 'h' or clause 'i' of sub-Section 2 of section 3 of the Act and, therefore, the provisions of Section 7(1)(a)(i) are not applicable where the maximum sentence of imprisonment provided extends to one year only. The offences alleged fall under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) and the sentence of imprisonment provided under this Clause extends to 7 years and, in such circumstances, considering the provisions under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, especially the First Schedule, Appendix 'A', read with Section 2(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the offences alleged against the petitioners are non-bailable. The contention of the petitioners, that these offences be treated as bailable, cannot be accepted.
8. In the result, criminal Writ Petition Nos. 302/1999, 312/1999, and , 314/1999 are dismissed in limine. The order of interim relief passed by this Court, on 18-8-1999, in criminal Writ Petition No. 302/1999, is vacated.