DIRECTOR OF RATIONING AND DISTRIBUTION versus THE CORPORATION OF CALCUTTA AND OTHERS

Augu~r 16.

DIRECTOR OF RATIONING AND DISTRIBUTION

THE COHPORATION OF CALCUTTA .\ND OTHERS

(B. P. SINHA, c. J., JAFER IMAM,·A. K. SARKAR, K. N. WANCHOO and J. C. SHAH, JJ.)

Statute, interpretation of-State, if bound by stat11te--Pri1ici-plcs applicable--" l'ason", if incl11dcs State-Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923 (Brn. II l of 1923), s. 386(1)(a)-Constit11tion of India, Art. 372.

The appellant was using certain premises in Calcutta fo storing rice flour, etc. \vithout taking ~ut any license undc. s. 386(1)(a) of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923. The respon· dent f1Jccl complaint against the appellant for contravention of s. 306(1)(a). The trial ~lagistratc acquitted the appellant holding that the provisions of s. 386(1)(a), neither in terms nor by necessary implication bound the Government whom the appel-lant represented. In revision, the High Court held that the Government was bound by statute unless the legislature excluded it expressly or by necessary implication. The High Court d•clined to follow the decision o! the Privy Council in L. R 73 I. A. 271 that the general principle applicable in Eng-land applied to Indian legislation also.

cld, that the State was not bound by the pro,·isions of s. 386(1)(a) of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923, and that the appellant was not liable to be prosecuted for contravention of this section.

!'er Sinha, C. J., Imam and Shah, JJ.-The law applicable to India before the Constitution was as authoritatively laid down by the Privy Council in L. R. 73 I. A. 271. The Constitution has not made any change in the legal position. On the other hand it has clearly indicated that the laws in force before January 26, 1950, shall continue to have validity even in the new set-up except in so far as they were in conflict with the express provi-sions of the Constitution. The rule of interpretation of statutes that the State is not bound by statute unless it is so provided in express terms or by necessary implication, is still good law.

Province of Bombay v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Bombay, (1946) L.R. 73 I. A. 271, applied.

Bell v. The Municipal Commissioners for the City of Madras, (1901) l.L.R 25 Mad. 457, disapproved.

The Corporation of Caler.Ila v. Sub-Postmaster, Dharmatala Post Office, (1948) 54 C. W. N. 429, United States of A""'rica v.

United Mine Workers of America, (1947) gr L. Ed. 884, United States of America v. Reginald P. Wittek, (1949) 93 L. Ed. 1406, Less Larson v. Domestic and Foreign Commerce Corporation, (1949) 93 L. Ed. 1628 and Roberts v. Abern, (1904) l C. L. R. 406, referr-ed to.

There is nothing in the Act to inclica te that the State was bound by it by necessary implication, nor is there anything in it to show that ifs. 386 were not held to apply to the State the law would lose it efficacy or that its working would be hampered in any way.

Per Sarkar, J.-The rule that the crown is not bound by the provisions of any statute unless it is directly or by necessary implication referred to is really rule of construction of statutes and is not dependent on royal prerogatives. It has been applied by courts in India all along before the Constitution and there is no reason why it should not be applied to the interpretation of statutes after the Constitution.

Attorney General v. Donaldson, (1842) ro M. & W. II7, Coomber v. Justices of Berks, (1883) App. Cas. 61, Roberts v. Ahern, (1904) 1 C.L.R. 406, United States v. United Mine Workers of America, (1947) 91 L. Ed. 884, United Statesv. The State of California, (1936) So L. Ed. 567, Bell v. The Municipal Commissioners for the City of Madras, (1901) I. L. R. 25 Mad. 457, Mersey Docks v. Cameron, (1865) II H. L. C. 443 and Coomber v. Justice of Berks, (1884) 9 App. Cas. 61, Greig v. University of Edinburgh, (1868) L. R. l H. L. (Sc.) 348 and Cooper v. Hawkins, [1904] 2 K. B. 164, referr-ed to.Section 386(1)(a) does not bind the Government by neces-sary implication ; the fact that certain provision• of the Act expressly exempt the Government does not raise the necessary implication. Nor would the purposes 9f the Act be defeated if the Government were not bound by it.

Hornsey Urban Council v. Hennel, [1902] 2 K. B. 7.l and Province of Bombay v. Municipal Corporation, Bombay, (1946) L.R. 73 I. A. 271, relied on.

Per Wanchoo, ].-The rule of construction which is based on the royal prerogative as known to the common law of England cannot be applied to India now when there is no crown in India and when the Common law of England is not applicable. The proper rule of construction which should be applied now is that the state is bound by statute unless it is exempted expressly or by necessasy implication.

Province of Bombay v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Bombay, (1946) L. R. 73 I. A. 271, not applied.

United States of America v. United Mine Workers of America, Etc., (1947) 91 L. Ed. 384, United States of America v. Reginald P. Wittek, (1949) 93 L. Ed. r406, Jess Larson v. Domestic and Foreign

D·ireclor of Rulionning & Distribution v.

The Corporation of Calcutta 0- Others

Director nf Ratir111i"C (.-.. Di .~r, ibu 1io11 v. Tht Corpvratioti of Calculla &..- 01/u:r:>

Commerce Corporatio11, (1949) 93 L. Ed. 1628, H. Snowdm Marsh-all v. People of the Stale of New York, (1920) 65 L. Ed. 315 and G11aranty Trust Company of New York v. United States of Amc·rica, (1938) 82 L. Eel. 1224._ referred to.

The Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923, docs not specifically exempt the State from its provisions. As the State c3nnot be sentenced to imprisop.ment it is exen1pt i>y necessary implication from all penal provisions provirling for sentences of imprison-ment or death. Further, where statute provides for fine and the fine goes to the State, the State is exempted from the provi-sions by necessary implication as it could never be the intention that such prosecution should be launched. The prosecution in the present case is under s. 488 which provides for fine for breach oJ s. 386, and the fine when imposed and realised goes to the State. Consequently, the State is exempt from the penal provisions of s. 488 of the Act by necessary implication.

CRIMINAL

APPELLATE

JURISDICTION:

Crimin&!

Appeal No. 158 of 1956.

Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated February 9, 1955, of the Calcutta High Court in Criminal Revision No. 282 of 1954, ari8ing out of the judgment and order datfld December 15, 1953, of the Second Municipal Magistrate, Calcutta, in Case No. 2629C of 1952.

1960. Feb. 8, 9, 10. S. M. Bose, Advocate-General for the State of West Bengal, A.G. Mitra, B. Sen, P. K. Bose and D. Gupta, for the appellant.. Threo questions arise for determination in thi9 appeal: (1) whether State is "person" within the meaning of s. 386 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923, (2) doos the Constit.u-tion make any change in tho principal of prerogative as part of the common law and (3) does Art. 372 of the Constitution keep tho existing law intact, i.e., the law as declared in L. R. 73 I. A. 271 to the effect that the Crown i8 not bound by any statute unless it is expressly named or unless it oan be held to be includ-ed by neceBBary implication.

The word " person " has been held not to include the State. [A.LR. 1954 Punj. 49; A.LR. 57 Punj. 150; A.LR. 53 Nag. 35; A.LR. 1955 Nag. 177; I.L.R. 1953 l Cal. 355; 62 C. W .N. 561. 33 Pat. 603 takes the contrary view.] If the word "person" included the State, Art. 300 of the Constitution would not be

Hll

necessary. How far the Crown is bound by Statute not specifically naming it is laid down by the Privy Council in L.R. 73 I.A. 271. The dceision of the Madras High Court taking contrary view in LL.it. 25 Mad. 457 was not cited before the Privy Council and is based upon t,he wrong assumption that common law changed with the change of legi8l>1tion. '!'he coming into force of the Constitution does not alter the. law as laid down in L.K 73 I.A. 271, I.L.R. 1958 Mad. 801 and I.L.R. 58 Born. 635. Article 372 of the Constitution includes the common law of the land and continues the same after the coming into force of the Constit,ution. [I.L.R. 1956 Cal. 26, I.L.R. 1955 Born. 654]. This common law doctrine of the immunity of .the Crowu from St.atutes not specifically naming it or referring to it by necessary implication is ·applicable in United States also. [52 L. Ed. 82; 65 L. Etl. 315; 82 L. Ed. 1224].

M. G. Setalvad, Attorney.General for India, R. Gana. pathy Iyer, R.H. Dhebar and T.1"1. Sen, for intervener .No. 1. The question is whether the ancient rule of English common law declared to be applicable to India by the Privy Council is applicable to the construction of s. 386 and it has to be examined as to what was the position before and after the Constitution. The High Court has decided that even before the Con8titu-tion the principle did not apply in spite of the Privy Council decision. The statute of 1923 must be con-strued in accordance with the rule of interpretation prevailing in 1923. The makers of statute in 1923 did not intend to include State in the word" person". The decision of the Privy Council was the binding law of the land unless there was . legislation abrogating it or _taking away its effect.. Article 372 of the Constitu-tion actually continues the law as laid down in L.R. 73 I.A. 271. This Article uses the expression "of the law in force in India" ancl not the words "existing law ". The same expression is used in s. 292 of the Govern-ment of India Act and was inte~preted in [1940] F.OA'.t-. llO. There is nothing in the Co,nstitution which takes away the applicabiliy of the rule. , There is noµiing in .,

Director of l?atio11ing C::~ Distribution v.

Tlie Corporatian vf Calcutta & Others

i96u that rule or in it8 nat,ure repugnant to any provl8lon of our ConHtitution. The rule is illustrated in 152 Dirtltor vj Rationrng {~ E.R. 406 and I C.L.R. 406. The rule is applicable to Dist"""'""' all forms of Governments and is based on the ground v. of public policy and not merely on the ground of The Corporatwn prerogative. [91 L. Ed. 884; 9:l L. Ed. 1628].

Dirtltor vj Rationrng {~ Dist"""'""' v. Corporatwn of c,. Calc:ata Others

V • Ji.' • 1' Cha • n, . Ad vacate 0 enera l or M ras anrl 'I'. M. Sen, for interv1>ncr ~·o. 4. Supported the Advo-cate-General of Bengal.

H. ld. Seervai, Adrncate-General for Maharashtra and R.H. Dhehar, for intervener ~o. 5. The word "per-son" should be gi\·en its normal meaning. It doe8 not include the Crown or the State. It would not include the State unless t.he sta.tuto would be meaningless without such inclusion. [L.K 73 I.A. 271; l C.L.R. 406]. By "necessary implication" is meant that with-out the inclusion of the crown or tho Statti the bcne-ficient purposo of tho statut.e would be wholly frustrat. ed. Tho consensus of j11dicial opinion in Bombay has • been the same as expressed in L.R. 73 I.A. 27 l. The rule has nothing to do with form• of Government. [93 L. Ed. 1406]. Indian decisions have uniformly taken this view. [5 Born. H.C.R. 23; I.L.R. I Born. 7; I.L.R. 14 Born. 213; 36 Born. L.R. 820; 37 Born. L.R. 499; I.L.R. 2 All. 196]. l.L.R. 25 Mad. 457 accepts tho rnlc but says that it docs not apply to taxation. This was wrongful curtailment of the prerogatiw. [Ha.lsbury, Vol. 7, p. 469, pa.ra. !J8]. The judgments of the Privy Council delivered before Janu-ary 26, l!J50, a.re binding on all courts in India. oxcept the Supremo Court and they a.re binding till the Supreme Court takes differont view. [A.I.R. 1953 Cal. 524; A.LR. 1955 !'\ag. 293; 56 Born. L.R. 1084]. Government of India. Act, s. 212 provided tha.t the judgmen.ts of the J<'cdera.I Court and of the Privy Council shall be binding a.nd shall be followed.

S. M. Sikri, Advocate-General of Punjab and D. Gupta, for intervener No. 2. In pre.Constituiion siatutes the word " person " could include " tho Crown " but normally or ordinarily it would not so include. In I.L.R. 1958 Punj. 201 it wa.s held that "person " included the State of Punjab and the Union

of India. The rule laid down by the Privy Council is

equally applicable to Republic. [25 L. Ed. 194; 65 L. Ed. 315; 24 L. Ed. 192 and 85 L. Ed. 1071]. In A.LR. 1956 Pat. 91 the State has becu held to be person.

G. C. Mathur and 0. P. Lal, for intervener No. 3. AdoptM the arguments of the Advocate-General of-West Bengal and of the Attorney-General of India.

T. M. Sen, for intervener No. 6. Ado!ited the argu-

ments of the Advocate-General, Bengal and the Attor-ney-General of India.

N. 0. Cha.tterjee, Siinil K. Basu aud Sukumar

Ghose, for respondents. Section 386 is directed towards rnaintern;nce of healthy condition etc. and is whole-some provision for safeguarding the health of the people by providing for the control or storing houses aud for the equality of the stores. The financial aspect, i.e., the recovery of license foes or fine is in-concequential. The prerogative of immunity from the statutes is only available when the State acts as State and not when it descends to t.rade and business. State is person. Salmond, 11th Edition, p. 35, defines person as an entity capable of rights and duties. It has the power to hold and acquire pro-perty; it can sue and be sued [Article 300 of the Constitution; 60 Punj. L. H. 546.]. The correct rule of interpretation is thftt to exempt the ~tate from the operation of statute there must, be express exelusion in favour of the State. [Friedman in 13 Modern Law Review, 24]. The mere fact that the State cannot be sent to jail, does not indicate that it is not person. Corporation is person. It is the stigma of the conviction that matters and it is not question of hurting the State financially. [1944] 1 K. B. 146; [1950] S.C.K 720. Corporation can be prosecuted even where mens rea or state of mind is concerned. [Paton on ,Jurisprudence, 2nd Edition, p. 279]. Sanc-tions of criminal law should be available against the State for enforcing the law. [72 C. L. R. 409; Willis' Constitution Law, p. 37]. State is person. [78 L. Ed. 1307; l. L. }{, [1951] l All. 269]. When State engages in trade or commerce, it must be treated in the same

Director of Rationing & Distribution

The Corporatio1i of Calcutta & Others

ni,tclor of Ratiot:u1g & J)istribulron v. of Calcutta & Other~

The, Corporatio;ic

way as ordinary citizens. [A. I. H. 1955 Nag. 177; A. I. R. 1956 Pa.t. 91]. Sta.to is not person only for the purposes of Art. 14.

The doctrine of immunity of States from the opera-tion of its laws cannot be invoked in the present constitutional set up. The rule is based on royal prerogative. (1 C. L. R 406; Willis p. 54]. The rule springs from the prerogativ•J that the King can do no wrong. [ [1920] 2 A. C. 508]. There is no one equiva-lent to the King now in India and therefore the prerogative does not survive. Law is scheme of social control and the command of superior. If the State claims immunity, it mnAt be exempted by express legislation. Iwmuuit.y cannot ho implied. Thero has been progressi\•e restriction on I.he immu-nity of the State. [78 L. Ed. 1307; 90 L. Ed. :rn6]. I. L. R. 25 Mad. 457 lays down the correct law. After tho coming into force of the Constitution, the High Courts are not bound by the ju<lgmellt of th" Privy Council. All powers arc derived from the Constitu-tion and no immunities can be implied.

Even if any immunity can be implied, then it cannot be invoked in respect of any trading or com-mercial activity. [5 Bom. H. C. R. Appendix 1 at p. 13; 78 L. Ed. 1307; 90 L. Ed. 326]. The act iv it.v carried on by the State in storing food grains etc., and distributing them was trading activity and not exer-cise of Governmental function.

The State is bound by necessary implication by the provisions of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923. Thero a.re proviRions in the Act which expressly exempt tho State from their operation. See s. 126.

S. M. Bose in reply.-Common law can be a.mended

by legislation. See s. 4, Hindu Succession Act (30 of 1956) and Hindu Adoptions and l\1aintena.ncc Act (78 of 1956). There is difference between Civil and Crimi-nal liability. [72 C. L. R. 406, at 409, 424, 4'15]. The Stat.e is not carrying on any trading activity but is acting in the exerciso of esRential Governmmita.l func-tions. [ (1955] 1 S. C. R. 707]. Common law of England was introduced in the Presidency towns by statutes. See Ormond's Rules of Court; I. L. R'. 61 Ca.I. 841.

1 S.C.R.

H. M. Seervai, (with the permission of the Court).

It is settled rule that if word is not term of art, you must take the ordinary meaning and not go to technical books. [74 C. L. R. l ; 90 L. Ed. 396; Hals-bury Vol. 7, p. 221 ].

S. M. Sikri, (with the permission of the Court)

referred to Holdsworth History of the English Law, Vol. 10, p. 354.

Our. adv. vult.

1960. August 16.-The Judgment, of Sinha, C. J., Imam and Shah, JJ., was delivered by Sinha, C. J. Sarkar and Wanchoo, JJ., delivered separate judg-ments.

SINHA C. J.-This appeal by special leave is

directed against the judgment and order of the High Court at Calcutta dated February 9, 1955, whereby that Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, set aside an order of acquittal dated December 15, 19,53;~passed by the Municipal Magistrate, Calcutta, in respect of the prosecution launched by the Corporation of Calcutta, responr,l'ent in this Court, against the appellant.

The relevant facts are these. On July 1, 1952, the Corporation of Calcutta made an application for sum-mons under s. 488 of Bengal Act III of 1923, which was substituted by West Benga.! Act XXXIII of 1951, against "the Director of Rationing and Distribution representing the Food Department of the Government of West Beng11! ". The offence complained of was" for using or permitting to be nsed premises No. 259, Chit.pm Road, Upper, for the purpose of storing rice etc., under the provisions of the Bengal Rationing Order, 1943, without licence under s. 386 for the year, 1951,52, corresponding s. 437 of the C.M.C. Act, 1951 ". Section 386(l)(a) of the Calcutta Municipal Act is in these terms:-·"No person shall use or permit to be used any premioes for any of the following purposes without or otherwise than in couformitv with the t,erms of licence granted by the Corporation in this behalf, namely, any .of the purposes specified in Schedule XIX".

Director of Rationing & Distribution

The Corporation of Calcutta 6- Others

Sinha C. ].

D1tt"Cf'JT nf Unt1n111ng & /)I .I! YI Ii It I ~J II v. Tht Corporo/1011 of Calcutta 6· 0Jhtr5

Item 8 of the sai<l Schedule iR "storing, packing, presRiug, cleansing, preparing or manufacturing, by any process whate\·er, any of the following articles" an<l the articles nwntione<! include rice, flour, etc.

The facts alleged by the prosecution w1•rc not denied on behalf of the Department, which was in tho posi-tion (>ft he a1)(!11scd, b.1t it was conten<le<l bv wiw of preliminary objection that the pros~cuti~n w~s not maintr.inablc in law. Aft.er hearing arg11m1mts for the parties the leu.rned triu.I Ma~istrat,e passed an order acquitting the accusc<l relying upon dcci,ion of the Calcutta High Court. in t.he case of The Corporation of Calcutta v. Sub.Postmaster, Dhnrarnta/a Post Office('), holding th.it the provision~ of s. 386 of the Act, neither in tnms nor by necessary implication, bound the Government. The respondent. rnovc<l the Calcutta High Court in its re,•isinnal juriMlicLion iu Criminal Revi8ion No. 282 of 1954, which waH lie;ir<l hy Divi-sion Bench con8ist.ing of ,l. P. :\litter aud S. !\.Gu ha Hay, JJ. Guha. Kay, J., who deliYcred the judgment of the Court., Mitter, J., concurring, hdd th•tl the prnvi-ous decision of tlw •arnc High Court, in 'J'hc Corporation of Calcutta, .. Sub-Postmaster, Dharamtala Post Oj]ice (') was clearly distinguishable. The distinction pointed out w1ts that the preYious decision of the Court had relied upon the docision of the .Judici;1! Cummittc" of the Privy Council in l'rovince of Bombay v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Born/Jay('), i11 cr>se arising before the coming into force of the Constitut.io11. As the present case itrose after th·, advent of the Constitu-tion, tho High Court did not feel bound by the afore-said decision of the Privv Council and therefore "xamined tho legal positi~n afresh. On such an ex-amination, t.he High Court came to the conclusion that the Indian Legislature in enacting !11ws acted on the assumption that the Government would ho bound unless excluded either expressly or by necessary implication oftener than on the assumption that it would not be bound, unless the Legislature so provided expressly or by necessary implication. The High Court took the view that the decision of the Division (I) {1948) 54 C,\.\'.~. 429. (z) (1946) L.R. 73 I.A. z71.Bench of the Madras High Court in Bell v. The Munici:-pal Commissioners for the City of Madras ([1]) was more in consonance with the law in lndia than the opposite view expressed in the Privy Council judgment afore-said. They definitely decided that the law of India, even before the coming into effect of the Constitution, and even at the time of the passing of the Government of India Act, 1935, was that the Government was bound by Statute unless it was exempted either expressly or by necessary implication. ln that view of the matter, the High Court further observed that the question whether the decision aforesaid of the Privy Council was still good law under Art. 372 of the Constitution did not arise and that, if it did, it was inclined to the view that the law declared by the Privy Council was not continued by any provision of law. In effect, the High Court took the view that the State . was bound by the Statute unless it was excluded from its operation either expressly or by necessary implica-tion. In that view of the matter, it held thats. 386 of the Act bound the appellant, set aside the order of acquittyd and sent the case back to the learned Magis-trate for disposal according to law. .The appellant made an application for special leave to appeal from the aforesa,id judgment and order of the High Court, and obtained special leave in September 1955. It is thus clear that this case had remained pending in this Court for about five years. If this Court agreed with the view expressed by the High Court, the case would have to be triud on merits and the trial would begin more than eight years after the institution of the peti-tion of complaint, but, as will presently appear, this prosecution was misconceived and therefore, in effect, no one has been the worse for the long pendency of the prosecution, which now must come to an end. The short question for determination in this appeal is whether any offence had been committed by the appellant, as alleged against him. If he was bound by the provisions of the Act to take out licence on pay-ment of the necessary fees, he must be held to have contravened the provisions of that Statute. It has (1) (1901) l.L.R. 25 Mad. 457·

Director of Rationing & Distribution v.

The Corporation of Calcutta & Others

Sinha C. ].

Dircc!or of Uaf1(ln1ng ~~ J)1Sfrii111/IV'I v.

The Corporalio11 of Calrullu {--Otho-.~ 5111/ia C. }.

b<>en contended:. by tho' learned Adv?ca.te-General of Bengal, representing the appellant, that the deciRion of the Privy Council referred to above is 8till good law and that. thA contrary decision of the Divi~ion Bench of tho :\fadras Hig!1 (;ourt (1) did not take the correct view of the legal position. The argument further is that the Privy Council deci;,iun was certuiuly bindii1g on the Cuurts in India at tho time it was rendered. That \\'as the law of the le.nd a• declared by the highest judicial authority. Has that judicial det.er-mination Leen altered by tLe Constitution Y It has been argued that the law in India, even after the coming into effect of the Constitution, continues to Le the same a• the law in England in respect of the prerogatives of the Crown. The Act in que8tivu does not make any express proviRion binding the Govern-ment and there was nothing in the Act to show to tho contrary hy necessary implication. 'The Act. 0ould opera.to with reasonable effic1\cy without being held to be binding on tho Goverrncnt. It was further p·,intcd out that the High Court hBd failed to take into con-sideration the fact that that High Court itself had construed the Calcutta Municipal Act of 1923, which was replaced by the present Act of 1951, on the basis of tho Privy Council decision not to have bound the (;overnrnent. Tho Act of 1951 did not mako any provision oxpressly a.Lmgating that view. Hence, it is argued the High Court Bhoul<l have felt bound by the previous decision of that very Court given on tho basis of the Privy Council decision; and had erred in taking tho opposite view. The argument further was that the State is not person within the meaning of the penal Bection with reference to which the prosecu. tion had Leen launched. The common law could uot have been overridden impliedly by course of legisla-tion. The common law applies to India even after the Constitution, not because there is tho King or the Queen, but because it is the law in force. ln other words, what was the prerogrative of the sovereign has now become the law of tho land in respect of the sover-eignty. of the State. Thus the law of England, which (1) (1901) l.L.R. 25 Mad. 457·

in its source was the prerogative of the Crown, was the common law of the land and was adopted by the Constitution by Art. 372, subject to the reservatiuns contained therein. The Attorney-General for India as also the Advocates-General of Madras and Bombay supported the contention ·raise<l on behalf of the appellant.

.Mr. N. C. Chatterjee, who appeared on behalf of the respondent, contended that. the State is legal person as recognised in Art. 300 of the Constitution and was, therefore, capable of rights and obligations; that unless there is an express exclusion of the State by the Legislature, the Act would apply to all, includ-ing the State. He further contended that under the Constitution there is no King and, therefore, there cannot be any question of prerogative. Any exemp-tion from the operation of the statute must be found in express immunity under the law and cannot be implied. He went to the length of contending that State's prerogative is inconsistent with the whole Constitution. Whatever may have been the legal position before the coming into effect of the Consti-tution, it has not countenanced the continuance of any such prerogative as is contended for on behalf of the appellant. Another line taken by Mr. Chatterjee is that when the State embarks upon business, it does so not in its sovereign capacity, but as legal person, subject to the same rights and liabilities as any other person. In effect, therefore, he contended that the State is person within the meaning of s. 386 of the Act; that the doctrine of immunity of States from the operation of its laws cannot be invoked after the advent of the Constitution, and, alternatively, that even if the immunity is available to the State as sovereign power, it is not available to the State when it embarked upon commercial undertaking and that, in any case, the State was bound by the law by apply-ing the rule of necessary implication from the provi-sions of the Act. ·

In this case it is manifest that it is the Government of West Bengal which is sought to be prosecuted

Director of Rationing ~.,... Distriliu!ion v.

The Corporation of Calcutta (?" Others

Sinha C. ].

Direc.!or of Ratic:ntnJ: C-Vistril;"t:o11 v. The Co,·poration of Calt:;itta &- Othrrs Sinha C. J.

through one of its officers. The prosecution is not against named person, but a.gs.inst tho Direct.or of a. named Department of the Government. The person who was tht' Direct,,r of the Depa.rt.men!. at the rele-vant date, that is to say, in the year 1951-52 may not be the same person who a.1rnwerec..l that description on the date the prosecution was launched. In essence, therefore, it is the Government of West Bengal which has t-0 answer the charge levelled by the respondent, the Corporation of Cu.lcutta. Whether prosecution against such an indeterminate person would or wo.ild not lie is t> matter which has not been rnised 11,nd, therefore, need not ho discussed. The question most canvassed before us in whether the penal section in-voked in this case applies to Government. It has hcen contended, and in our opinion rightly, that the provisions of the penal section neither by express terms nor by necessary implication arc meant to be A.pplied to Government. The decision of the J i;dicial Committee of tho Privy Council('), if it is good law even now, completely covers this case, but the deci-sion of the High Court, now under examination, has ta.ken the vi"w that the earlier decision of the Division Bench of the J.\Iadras High Court(') ha8 laid down the correct law, and not the Privy Council decision. We have, therefore, to decide which of the two deci-sions has ta.k•m the correct view of tlrn legal position as it obtained on the day the prosecution was launched.

It is well-established that the common law of Eng-

land is that the King's prerogative is illustrated by the rule that the Sovereign is not neces8arily bound by statutory law which binds the subject. This iH further enforced by the rule that the King is not bound by statute unless be is expressely na.m~d or unless he is bound by necessary implication or unless the statute, being for the public good, it would be absurd to exclude the King from it. Bla.ckst-One (Commen-taries, Vol. I, 261-262) accurately summed up the legal position as follows :-

"The king is not ·bound by a.ny act of Parlia-ment, unless he be named therein by special a.nd \1) (1946) L.R. 73 I.A. z71. (1) [1901] °I.L.R. 25 Mad. 457,

pa.rticular words.

The moRt general words that can

be devised ...... affoct not him in the least, if they may tend Lo restrain or diminish any of his rights or inte-rests. For it. would be of most mischievous consequ-ence to the public, if the strength of the executive power were liable to be curtailed without its own express consent by constructions and implications of the subject. Yet, when an act, of Parliament is expres-sly n111de for the preservation of public rights and the suppression of public wrongs, and does not interfere with the established rights of the crown, it is ·said to be binding as well upon the king as upon the subject; and, likewise, the king may take the benefit of a.ny particuhr 11.ct., though he be not specially named." ((~noted at p. 355 of Holdsworth, History of English Law, Vol. X).

The King's prerogat.ive is thus ere:1tod and limited by common law and the sovereign can claim no preroga-ti''''> except such as the law alluws. (See Halsbury'~ L<tws of Enghnd, Vol. 7, Third Edition, para. 464, at p. 221).

The prerogative of the Crown in respect of property is thus stated in the same volume of Halsbury's Laws of England, para. 980, at p. 465 :-

" The Crown not being bound by any statute

whereby any prerogative right, title, or interest belong-ing to it may be divested or abridged, unless expressly named or bound by clear implication, property owned, and occupied by the Crown is exempt from taxation nnlcss rendered liable either by express words or necessary implication. Moreover, an express exemp-tion of particular classes of Crown property in statute is not in itself sufficient to raise the implication that such property only is exempt, and that other property not falling within the exception is bound, such clauses being inserted merely ex majore cautela." . That was the law applicable to India also, as authori-tatively laid down by the Privy Council in the case referred to above. That decision was rightly followed by the. Calcutta High Court as stated above. That would be the legal position until the advent of the Constitution.

Director of Rationing & Distrib:tfion

The Corpo1'afion of Calcutta & Others

Sinha C. ].

f.1£,r.c.!oY of Uat>< .. ·11:11J? .;,. Dis1ri/,11t11J1 v. Tlit Ccitf'Jt(lflOll of Calcutta (,,. Orlicr5 Sit1h:i C. ].

The question naturally arises: ivhether the Constitu-tion has made any change in that position ? Thera aro no words in the Constitution which can be cit,ed in support of the proposition that the position has chang-ed after the republican form of Go\'ernment has been ndumbrat~d by· our Constitution, It was argued on behalf of the respondent that the existence of such prerogative is negatived by tho·very form of our new set up, that is to say, it was contended that the repu-blican form of Government is wholly inconsist,ent with the existence of such prerogative, In our opinion, there is no warrant for such contention, The immu-nity of Goverumont f1:om tho operation of certain statutes, and particularly statutes creating offences, is based upon the fundamental concept that tho Govern, rnent or its officers can.not he p:irty to committing a. crime-analogous to the • preroga.t ive of perfect.ion ' that the King can do no wrong,. Whatever may have been the historical roe.son of the rule, it has been adopted in our country on grounds of public policy as rule of intorpretat-ion of statutes, That. this rule is not peculiar or confined to monarchical form of Government is illustrated by the decision of the Supreme Court of U, S. A, in the case of United State.s of America v, United Mine Workers of America ([1]), where it is la.id down that restrictions on the issue of injunctions in la.hour disputes contained in certain statutes do not apply to the United States Govern-ment as &n employer or t-0 relations between the Government and its employees and that statutes in general terms imposing certain restrictions or divest-ing certain privileges will not be applied to the sovereign without express words to that effect, Simil-arly, in the case of United States of America v. Regi-nald P, Wittek('), the question aroso whether the District of Columbia Emergency Rent Act applied to government-owned defence housing or to government-owned low-rent housing in tho Dist-rict., and it was ruled by the Supreme Court, reversing the decision of the Munieipa.1 Court of Appoals, that the statute in ques-tion did not apply to the United States Government (1) (19i7) 330 U.S. l58: 91 L. Ed. SB+. (2) (1949) 337 U.S. 346; 93 L. Ed. r4o6.

which was not a. "landlord " within the meaning of r960 the Act. The decision was based bn the· rule that genera 1 statute imposmg restr1ct1t>ns oes · · · ..... · · 11ot impo.se · Ralioni~ig Director of & them upon the Government itself· without clear D!et_rib,.eion-expression or implication to that effect.• Another y. illustration of the rule· is to be found in the case of Tho Corporation Jess Larson v. Domestic and Fo?eig'f!' 'Commerce Oor-· 0! Calcutta poration ('). In tha.t case suit by citizeQ, in effect, & Others against the Govern'ment (War Assets Administration) Sin/:--;;. 1_ for an injunction was dismissed by the D.i!itrict Court on the_ground that the Court dia not ~ave jurisdiction, because the suit was one against .the United States.• The Supreme Com:t, by majority, -held that the suit as against the United States must fail on the ground that according to the laws of the country the sovereign enjoyed an immuqity which was not enjoyed .b)':. the citizens. The case of Roberts v. Ahern(•) is another illnstratfon of the same rule. It was held by the High Court of Australia in that case that the Executive Government of the Commonwealth or of State is not -bound by statute unless the intention that it shall be so bound is apparent.On the other hand, Art. 372 of the:Qonstitution has specifically provided that subject to the Other provi-siCl.ll.S of the Cdnst.itution all the la.ws in force in this country immediately before the commencement of the Constitution shall continue in force until altered or repealed or ii.mended by competent Ligislature or by other competent authority. The expression "law in -force" has been used in very comprehensive s'ense as would appear from the provisions of sub-els. (a) and (b) of cl, (3) of Art. 13 of-the Constitution .. If we, compare theprovisions of A'rt. 366(10) which defines "existing Jaw " which has reference to Jaw made· by legislati've agency in contradistinction to "Jaws in force" which include!! not only statutory law, but also custom or usage having the force of law, it must be interpreted as including thl3 common law of Englljond which was adopted as the law of this country befoi;e the Constitu-tion came into force. It is thqs clear that far from

(1) (1949) 337 U.S. 682 : 93 L. Ed. 1628.

(2) (1904) 1 C.L.R. 406.

Director .of Rationing 6-Distribulion v: T_he Corporation of Calcutta 6- Others Si.nhfl- C. J.

the Con.stitution ma~ing'.'any change in the legal posi-tion, it has· clearly ..indicated that the Ia.ws in force continue to have validity, even in the new set up, except in so far as they cor:µe in confifot with the express provisions·of the Qonstitntion. No such provi-sion has been broqg1;it to our 'notice. That being so, we arc definitely of the opinion that 'the r,ule of inter-. pre1:ation. :9£:stattitei;) ~hat the.State is 'not bonncfby 'statute, unless.it.is so provided iri express t~rms or by neces.~ary.Jmplication, is still good law. .

But Mr. Chatt'2,rjee further contended; alternatively, thae even if it were held that the Government as spvereign ·pow~r inay,have. the. ~enefit·of the immlrnity claimed, it is not !llltitled .to that immuniiy when it embarks upon business and, in that. cap;i.oity, becomes su\Jject to the penal provisions of the statute equally with other citizens. This" question wa.s not raisl'd below and has not been gone i'llto by the High Court, nor is it clear on 1.he record, as it.stands, that the Food Department of .the Government of West llenga.J, which undertook rationing and distribution of food on rational basis had -embarked upon any trade or business. In the a'bsence of any 'indic111ion to the contrary, apparently this Department of the Govorn-meJlt was djscharging the elementary duty of sqvrreign to ensure proper and equitable distribution of aui.llable. fpod-stuffs with v.iew to maintaining pca9e and good Governmen~. Therefore, the alterna-tive argument suggested J.,y Mr. Chatterjee has no fouudation in fact.

1 t only remains to consider the .other alternative

argument that even if the Seate has· not been bound by the pe1)al seotion in the statute in question in express terms, it must be deemed to be bound by it by necessary implicatiou. But no specific provisions of the statute in questiop h;i.ve been brought to our n6tice which. could lend any support to this alternative argu-ment. It has not been shown to us that if the section which was sought to be applied against the Govern-ment were held not expressly to apply to Government, the law will lose any qf its efficacy., or that its working will be hampered in auy way. It must, thorefore, be

held that there is. no substance irt this contention . eithei:. · ~ The appeal· is accordingly allowea, the judgment under appeal set aside and the acq'uitta) of· the appel-"lant confirmed. • · - ·-- • -·

DireCtor of Rationing & Distribution v.

The Corporation ,of Calcutta & Others Sarkar J.

SARKAR J.-The appellant ·is an. officer of the Government.oJ West Bengal. He was..prosec:uted before Municipal Magi~ti;ate of Calcutt.a for storing rice in certain .premises :withdu t obtaining licence for that. purpose fro!I) the respondiint, the Corporation of Cal-cutta, ,o.s required by. s. 386 of the Calcutta Municipal AQt, 1923. ·That was an Act passed by the legislature' of the formi:r"Proy11lpe of Bengal and may, for . .the pres\)nt purpose, be ta.ken to have been passed by the legis-lature 9f the State of West Bengal. In storing the rice the appellapt. had acted in his official capacity and for carrying out the West Bengal Government's rationing scheme. • .

The Magistrate acquitted the appellant holding thl).t the Act did not bind the -Government as it .was neither expressly" nor. by necessary implication made bou.nd,. and so, the appellant who had been prosecuted as reptesentin~the Go,Yernment. would not be liable for non-compliance with its provisions. On revision the High Court at Calcutta held that the English rule that statute did not bind the Crown unless expressly. or by necessary implication made bound, did not, apply to Indian statutes and so the Government·would be liable for breach of the provisions of the· Calcutta Municipal Act. In this view of the matter, the High Court set aside the order of acquittal and sent the case·back to .the Magistrate for disposal on the merits. This appeal has been taken from the order of the High .Court with special leave granted by this Court. The main question is whether the English rule that " The Crown is not bound by the provisions of any statute unless it is directly or by necessary implication referred to " applies to India. It is said that· the ~ule is based oq the English law of Crown prerogativps and has no application. to India since, the promulga-tion of ou\. Constitution as we have now republican I

{960 form of gqvernment where no questjon of royal prero-Dfrector of ~ga.th'.e_s can a.rise. It is pointed out that the prosecu-Rationing & tion wits in this ca.se started since. the Constitution D{ft.ibutio11 came into force and whatever ma.y ha.ve been t.he v. position earlie10 the Government ca.n no longer take , Corporation Calcutta shelter. under the '.English rule. , -.

Rationing & D{ft.ibutio11 v.

The , Corporation of Calcutta &- Others Sark~r ].

I think the rule applies to. India even after tlie

·co,n'Btitution. It ·seems ·to me tha.t the,rule as applied in mocfern times, is really a. rule of construction of statutes a.nd is not dependent on royal prerogatkes. This is tlie' view that appears to ha.ve been taken in all recent authorities, to some of which I wish now to refer.

I11 Craies' on Statutes (5th Ed.) it is Stll.ted at· p. 392

that" The r,ule is analogous, if not equivalent, to' the rule already stated· that the eommon law is not pre-sumed to be altered by statute". The rule, therefore, is based on the presumed intentfon of the legislature aud is, hence, a. rule of construction of statutes. Then I find it stated in Attorney-General v. Donaldson ([1]) that " It is well established rule, generally speaking, in the construotion•Of Acts of Parliament, that the 1 King is not included' unless £here a.re words to that effect; for it is inferred prim.a faci~ that the law ma.de by the Crown with the assent of the Lords and Commons, is ma.de for subjects and not for the Qrown". Again in 00,omber v. Justices of Berks(•) it was said.in· referance to ·this rule, "In Rex v. Cook, 3 T.R. 519, the general principle as to the construction of statutes imposing charges as conta.i.ning·a.n exemption of the Crown was laid·down ". In the Austra.lia.n case· of Roberts v. Ahern;('), it was said, "'Dhis rule ha.a com-monly been- based on the Royal prerogative. Perhaps, however, having regard to modern developments of constitutional la\y, more satisfactory basis is to be _found in the words of Alderson, B.'' The Wf pfs refe\-red to are what I have already set out ~:ofi1 Attorney-General v. Donald,son ([1])'. · In America too this rule has been applied as" rule . . . (I) (1842) 10 i.\!. & \V. 117, 123; rsz E.R. 4q6;

'(2) (1883) App. Cas. 61, 65.

(3) (1904) • C.L.R. 406, 417.

of construction though there 'is no King there but th~ government is of the republican form. So in United States v. United Mine Workers of America(') it 'wag observed, "There is an old and well-known rule that statutes ·which in general terms divest pre-existing tights or privileges will not he applied to the sovereign without express words , to that effect. It bas been stated, in cases in which there were extraneous and affirmative reasons for believing that the sovereign should also be deemed subject to re~trictive statute, that this rule was rule of construction only ". Again in reference to the same rule it was said in United States v. State of California('). "The presmnp-tion is an a.id to consistent construction of statutes of the enacting sovereign whe'n their purpose is in • doubt".

Director of Rationing c.,,. Distribution v.

The Corporation of Calcutla &;.. Othe1·s

Sarl1ar ].

In our country also in Bell v. The Municipal Com-missioners for the City of Madras('), a, case on which much reliance has been placed by the respondent, it was said after referring to various English cases deal- ' ing with the rule, "This emphatic statement of the rule being founded upon, general principles of construc-tion is undoubtedly applicable as "inuch to Indian enactments as t~ Colonial or Imperia.l Statutes". It was also said a.t the same page, "The rule of construc-tion above adverted to cannot itself be regarded as prerogative Of the Crown".Then I find that in England the rule protects from the operation of statute not only what may strictly be called Crown prerogatives, or whatever is nowa-days left of them, but all the Crown's rights, title and interest: see _Halsbury's Laws of England (3rd Ed.) Vol. VII, p. 465. In volume XXXI of the Second Edition of the same treatise it is stated with reference to t)ie rule that, "The Crown for this purpose means not only the King personally, but also the 'officers of State a.n\i servants of the Crown when acting within the scope of their authority on behalf of the Crown in the discharge of executive duties". In' Mersey Docks (I) (1947) 330 u. s. 258, 272; 91 L: Ed. 884,-902.

(2) (I936) 297 U, S. I75, I86; 8o, L. Ji:d, 567, 574· (3) (I90I) l.L.R •. 25 Mad, -157• 485. 2) -

Director of Rationi'ttg & Distribution v. The Corporatio11 of Calcutta &- Others Sarkar .] .

v. Cameron ([1]), Lord Cranwort.h after referring to the various iruJtanccs where the rule had been applied to exe.mpt. buildings occupied for purposes of the govern-ment from mtes and other· impositio~s. said, "These decisions _l)owcver have all gone on the ground more or less 8onm1, that.these might all be tre;tted as build-ings occupied by the servants. of the· Crown, and for the Crown, extending in some in~tances the shield of the Crown to what mig'ht' more fitly be described as the pi1blic"government of the country". Again- in-Coomber v: .Tustir.es of Berks('), Lord Blackburn after referring to certain observations Of Lord Westbury in tpe-Mersey Docks case(') s11id, "He there says -that the public purpose8 to make an exemption "must be such as itre rcrj11ired and created by the government of the c9un-try, and are, therefore, to be deemed part of the use and service of the Crown;" and in Greig v. University of Edinburgh(') he more clearly shews what was his view l.iy using this language, "property occupied by tbe servants of the Crown, and (according to the theory of the Constitution) property occupied for the purposes of the administration of the government of the country, beqome ex.empt from.. liability to the poor-rate'--'." In this case it was held that lands with buildings constructed thereon and used by c·ounty justices, and for police purposes were not lial;ile to income· tax._ In Cooper v. Hawkins(') it was held that an engine-dtiver 11rriployed by the Cro,wn who drove steam-locomotive on Crown service at speed exceeding the limit specifi-ed by regulations made under statute, was. not liable as in the absence~of express words, the statute did not bind the Crown.. Lastly, I refer to ROberts v. Ahern(') where 'person- acting under' the otders of the Govern-ment of the Commonwealth of Australia had been prosecuted for .having carted away nigh:tsoil from .Post Offipe without licence from, and without having given any security to, the· local authority, as was required by an enactment of the State of Victorta. It was held that. he was not liable to prosecution because,

(l) (1865) 11H.L:C.443, 508; II E.R. 1405.

(2) (1883) 9 App. Cas. 61. 65.

(3) (1868) L.R. 1 H.L. (Sc.) 348.

(5) (1904) I C.L.R. 4o6, 417.

(4) (1904] 2 K.B. 164.

" The modern sense of the rule, at any rate, is that the 1960 Executive Government of the State is not bound by , Director of Statutes unless. that intention is apparent: ' p. 418, Rationing e;, It was also said that " The doctrine is well settled in Disfribution this sense in the United States of America:,,. (p. 418). v. It is unnecessary to multiply instances where acts of The Corporation o t the fh executive government have received rue. 1 . the protection o~c~•m 0a1chutta ~•m 0a1chutta 0a1chutta

Director of Rationing e;, Disfribution v. The Corporation a1chutta . o~c~•m 0a1chutta ~•m 0a1chutta 0a1chutta

All this would ·seem to put it· beyond doubt, that whatever its origin, the rule has long been. regarded only as rule of constr4ction. It has been widely used to exempt executive governments from !be Opflra-tion of statutes quite apart from protecting preroga. tive rights of the British Crown stric.tly so called. It has been -held reasonable to presume that the legisla-ture intended that ell.eCUtive governments ate not to be bound by statutes unless made bound expressly or -by n.ecessary implication. It would be equally reason-able to do so in our country even under the present set up for the presumption has all along been raised in the past and especially as the applicablity of the rule can no longer be made to depend on the prevailing form of government. In countries with republican form of government, the Sovereign would be the State, and its acts, which.can only be the acts of its execu-tive limb would be, under the rule exempt from the · operation of its statutes. Whether the royal preroga-tive as understood in England, exists Ill the present day India is not question that can arise iu applying what .is pure rule of construction of statutes.

Sarkar J.

Further it is quite clear that the rule has been applied by courts in India in the constructio·n of Indian statutes all 'along at any rate upto the promulgation of our Constitution, except in the solitary instance of .Bell's case(') earlier referred to .. It would therefore be right to hold· that the legislatures in our country have proceeded on the basis . that the- rule would govern the enactments passed by them. ··That being so and remembering that the rule is one of constr)lction, there would be no reason to deny its application to Indian statutes after>tbe Constitution .. The new republican

(1) (1901) l.L.R. 25 Mad . .j57.

Dir·tcf(:r (>/ Hn/H,llP?f: (":"· J st ri 1,u 11010 v. The Corron1t10;1 of Calcutta 6 ()/JitYS Sa~Har J.

form of government adopted by us would not warrant drparture from the long estu.blished rule of con-struction.

It was then s'1.irl that the course of legislation in India would indicate that it was not. intended even before the C-0nstitution that the rule would apply to Indian statutes. Thio contention was based on Bell's case ([1]). That case seem& to me t-0 have proceeded on a. basis not very Rotrnd. On an examination of certain Indian statutes it was said, "It is noteworthy that as general rule government is specially excluded when-ever the Legislature considered that certain provisions of an enactment should not bind the Government". From this the conclusion was drawn that "According to the uniform course of Indian legislation, statutes imposing dut.ies or taxes bind Govnnment as much as its subjects, unless the very nature of the duty or tax is such as to bo inapplicable to the Government". It seems t-O me that this decision overlooks the uniform course of decisions of Indian Courts applying the rule in the construction of Indian statutes. The legislature must bo deemed to have known of these decisions and if they wanted to depart from their effect they would have passed statute bringing about the desired re•ult. :!'\o such statute was ever passed. It is well-known that in these oiroumstances the legislatures must. be taken to have proceeded on the basis that the decisions were correct and the rule was to be applied to the ste.tutes passed by them. The.t being so, an exami-nation of the course of lndie.n legislation would be irre-levant. The ca.sea where the Government we.s expressly excluded must be ta.ken to be instances of exemptions ex majori cautila: see HornBey Urban Council v. Hen-nel('). Furthermore, it seems to me that compari-son of the number of statutes where the Government had been specially excluded from their or'lre.tion with the number where the statutes are silent on the subject, is, e.t best, very unsafe guide for deciding whether the rule should be applied to Indian enact-ments. I therefore dissent from the view expressed in Bell's case('), that the rule does not apply in India. (•) (1901) l.L.R. •5 Mad. 457· (2) [19<n] • K.B 73-

• S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

Now it seems to me that in storing the rice in the pres11nt case, the Gover,nment of West Bengal was performing one of its governmental functions. It was storing rice for purposes of rationing, that is, making food-stuff availablf! to citizens in time of scar-city. That such activity is part of the government's duty is unquestionable. The act for which the appel-lant was prosecuted was, therefore, ·an act of the West Bengal Government done in discharge of its ordinary duties as the government and the rule would ·prevent the Act from applying to· make -the Govern_. ment liable for breach of it.

Director of Rationing 6-Distribution v.

The Corporation of Calcutla -& Others

Sarkar ].

Then it is said that the Act binds the Government by necessary implication. In support of this argument we were referrsd to certain provisions of the Act which expressly exempted the Government from their opera-tion. I am unable to agree that this raises the neces-sary implication. It has been said in Halsbury 's Laws of England (2nd Ed.) Vol. X:.l(XI at p. 523 that ".A general prerogative of the Crown is not deemed to. have been abandoned by implication by reason of the specific exemption in statute of any class of the servants of the Crown from acting in compliance with the preroga,tive,. nor by reason of the fact that the . Crown has .foregone or curtailed its rights in some other direction in another part of the statute" ; see also· Hornaey Urban Oouncil case(') earlier referred to. These observations would show the unsoundness of the contention raised by .the respondent.Lastly, it is said that the purpose of the Act was to prevent adulteration of food-stuffs and this object would be wholly-defeated unless the Government was bound by it. It is not in ~ispute that if -this were so, that might be ground for holding that the Act bound the Government. On this aspect of the case reference may be made to· Province of Bombay v. Municipal Oorporation of Bombay (9). I am however unable to hold: that the purpose of the Act would be wholly or at all defeated if the Goverl)n'.ient were not bound by it. · It seems to me that s. 386 of the Act, the breach of which is complained in this case, is concerned with (1) (1902] 2 K.B. 73. (2) (1946) L.R. 73 L.R. 73 73 I.A. 271. 271.

(2) (1946) L.R. 73 L.R. 73 73 I.A. 271. 271.

Dirtcfor of Ratio"•-ig & D1strili11tion v. Corporation of Calcutta &- Other.< Sarkar J

i' ise Corporation

SUPRE:\fE COuRT REPORTS

the use of premisos and not with the prevention of adulteration of food-stuffs as was contended for the respondent. The provi8ions with regard to adultera-tion of food-stutfa are contained in different part of the statute. There is nothing to Hhow that the pur-pose of the Act would wholly be defeated if some premises were used contrary to tho terms of the Act.

I would for these reasons hold that the Act did not bind the Government a.nd the prosecution of the appellant for an act done in the discharge of his duties as an officer of the Government cannot he maintained. This appeal should therefore be allowed and the order of tho High Court set aside and that of the .'.llagistra.te restored.

WA!\CllOO .J.-L h<1.vo had the a.ct vantage of reading tho judgments prepared by my Lord the Chief Justice and my brother ~arka.r J. I agree with their conclu-sion but my reasons are different.· 1 therefore proceed t<i state my reasons for coming to the same concluBion.

The facts have already been stated in the judgment of my Lord the Chief Justice and l will not therefore repeat them. Sufllce it to say that the Corporation of Calcutta initiated this prosecution, in substanc~, of the ~tatn of West Bengal through its Director .of lla.tion. ing and Distribution under s. 488 oft.he Calcutta. :\lnni. cipal Act, No. III of l!l23, (now equivalent to 8. 537 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, ~o. XXXIll of 1951), for nsing or permitting to be nscd certain premises for the purpose of 8toring rice, elc. under the proviHions of the Bengal Rationing Order, 1943, without licence under s. 386 of Act Ill· of 1923, (now equivalent to s. 437 of Act XXXILI of Hl51). The State did not clenY the facts; but it wa.s cont.ended on its.behalf that the· prosecution was not maintainable in law. The Magistrate held that the provisions of s. 386 of the 1923 Act did not apply w the Sta.to either expressly 01· by. necessary implication and therefore passed an order of a.cquitt&I. The Corporation took the matter in revision to the High Court, which distinguished an .,arJier decioion of tho High Court relied upon by the !\la.gistrate and, held that after India. became democratic republic from Jan nary 26, 1950, the High Court was not bound by the decision of the Privy Council in similar matter reported in Province of Bom. bay v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Bombay (1 i and that the rule of construction based on the royal prerogative that the Crown was not bound by statutE unless it was expressly named therein or at any rnte could be held to be bound by necesary impl,ication, did ·not apply in India after Janua_ry 26, 1950, and that the true rule of construction on which the Indian legislatures acted was that the State would be bound unless excluded either expressly or by necessary· implication. The High Court th_erefore held thats. 488 of the Act of 1923 read with s. 386 bound the State and set aside the order of acquittal and sent the case back to the Magistrate for disposal according to lR.w. The most important question thus is, whether the rule of construction derived from the royal prerogative in England can still be said to· apply in India after January 26, 1950. If this rule ·of construction based on the royal prerogative does not apply, it would nece-ssarily follow that the ordinary rule of construction, namely, that the State WO!Jld also be bound by the law like anybody else unless it is expressly excluded or excluded by necessary implication, would apply. Now the rule of construction baaed on the royal prerogative is survival from the mediaeval theory of divine right of Kings and the conception that the sovereign was absolutely. perfect, with the result that the common law of England evolved the maxim that " the King can . do no wrong ''... In course of time however the . royal prerogative in England was held to have been . created and limited by . the oommon la.,v and the · sovereign could claim no prerogatives, except such as the law allowed nor such as were contrary· to Magna Carta or any other statute ·~r to the liberties of the subject. The courts also had jurisdiction to inquire · into the existence or extent of any alleged prerogativP. If any prerogative was disputed, they had to. decide the question whether or not it existed in the same way as they decided any other question of law. If

Director of Rationing & Distribution

The CorpOration

of Calcutt~

& Others ·

WanchoO ].

(1) (1946) L.R. 73 I.A. 271.

Dirtclor of Ra120111nc 6-Distnbutio11 v.

The Corpo1·dtion of Calculta & Otltets WaJtchoo J.

prerogative was clearly established, they could take the same judicial notice of it as they took of any other rule of law: (see Halsbury's Laws ofEngli~nd, 3rd Edition, Vol. 7, p. 221,para.. 464).

The question of royal prerogative wa.q 1.Iso consider. ed in AUorney-General v. De Keyser's iloyal Hotel Limi-ted('). It was held therein that oven where there was prerogative it could be curtailed by a. statute, if the statute dee.It with something which before it could he affected by the prerogative, inasmuch a.s the Crown was party to every . Act of Parliament. Thus in modern times, the royal prerogative is the residue of discretionary or arbitrary authority which a.t any time is lega.Ily left in the hands of the Crown and is recognisod under the common law of England. Two things are clear from this modern conception of royal prerogative, namely, (I) that there must be a. Crown or King to whom the royal prerogative attaches, and (2) that the prerogative must be pa.rt of the common law of England. Both these conditions existed when the Privy Council decision in Province of Bombay v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Bombay (') was given in October 1946; the King was still there and the Privy Council held that the English common law rule of construction applied to Indian legislation as much a.s to English statutes. I may mention however that. in England also the .rule has come in for criticism by writers of books on law. Glanville L. Willia.ms in his treatise on "Crown Proceedings" says at p. 53: "The rule originated in the .Middle Ages, when it perhaps had some justification. Its survive.I, how-ever, is due to little but the vis inertiae." Age.in at 54, the author says-

" With the great extension in the activities of the State a.nd the number of servants employed by it, and with tho modern idea, expressed in the Crown Proceed-ings Act," (compare in this connection Art. 300 of our Constitution), " that the State should be accountable in wide measure to the law, the presumption should be that statute binds the Crown rather than it does not."

(1) [1920) A.C. 5o8. (2) (1946) L.R. 73 I.A. 271.

After January 26, 1950, when our country became democratic republic and the J;(ing ceased to exist, it is rather otiose to talk of the royal prerogative. It is also well to remember that the English common law as such never applied to India, except in the territories covered by the original side of the three _ Chartered High Courts, namely, Calcutta, Bombay and Madras, (see Kahirodebir.ari ])atta v. Mangobinda Panda(') ) though sometimes rules of English cqmmon law were applied by Indian courts on grounds of justice, equity and good conscience. It seems to me therefore that to apply to Indian statutes construction. based on the royal prerogative as kDown to the common law of England now when there is no Crown _in this country and when the common law of England was generally not even applicable, (except in very small part), would be doing violence to the ordinary principle of construction of statutes, namely, that· only those a:re not bound by statute . who are either expressly exempted or must be held to be exempt by necessary implication.

DirectoY of Rationing &-Distribution

The Corporation ·of Calcutta & Others •

Wanchoo ].

In our country the Rule of Law prevails and our Constitution has guaranteed it by the provi_sions. con-tained in Pt. III thereof as well as by other .provisions in other Par.ts: (see Virendra Singh and others v. The State of Uttar Pradesh(') ). It is to my mind inherent in the conception of the Rule of Law that the State, no less than its citizens and others; is. bound by the laws of the land. When the King as the embodiment of all power-executive, legislative and judicial-has disappeared and in our republic.an Constitution, · sovereign power has been distributed among various organs created thereby, it seems to me that there is neither justification nor necessity ·for continuing the rule of construction based on the royal prerogative. It is said that though the King has gone, sovereignty still exists and therefore what was the prerogative of. the King has become the prerogative of the sovereign. There is to my mind misconception here. It is true that sovereignty must exist under our C?nstitution;'

(1) (1934) I.L.R. 61 'Cal. 841, 857._

(2) [1955] 1 S,C.R. +'5·

but there is no sovereign a.a such now. In England, Dirtc/Dr of however, tho King is synonymous with the sovereign Rationing 6-and so arose the royal prerogative. But in our coun-Distribulirn1 try it would be impossible now to point to one person v. or institution and to say that he or it is the sovereign The Ca.po.atio" under the Constitution. further question may arise, •! Cal<utta if one is in search of sovereigu now, w bctber the 6- Others Stat~ Government with which one is concerned here is sovereign in the samo sense a.a the English King (though it may have plenary powers under the limits set under our Constitution). This to my mind is another reason w by there bein~ no King or sovereign as such now in our country, the rule of construction based on th1J royal prerogative can no longer be invoked.

Reliance wa.s placed in this connect.ion on certain cases from AuHtralia and Canada and also from the United States of America. So far as Australia and Canada are concerned, the cases are not of much help for the Crown exists there still. Besides in Canada and in most of the provinces of Canada and in New Zealand provisions have been specifically introduced in the Interpretation Acts laying down that no provi-sion or enactment in any Act shall affect, in any man-ner whatsoever, the rights of His Majesty, bis heirs or successors, unless it is expressly stated therein that His Majesty shall be bound thereby: (sec Street on " Governmental Liability ", at p. 152).

In the United States also, it is doubtful if the royal·

prerogative as such is relied on as the basis of certain principles which are in force there. In United StateB of America v. United Mine Workers of America, Etc.('), the Supreme Court did say that there was an old and well-known rule that statutes which in general terms divested pre-existing rights and privileges would not be applied to the sovereign without express words to that effect. But there was no discussiou of the royal prerogative as such in the judgment and the rule was ca.lied well-established rule of construction only. Besides the Court went on to consider the words of the statutes under consideration and held that on proper construction of them the United Stat~s was not bound. \1) (1947) 330 U.S. 258: 91 L. Ed. 88.t·In United &ates of America v. Reginald P. Wittek('), the St!-preme Court did say that general statute imposing restrictions does not impose them upon the government itself without clear expression or implication to that effect; but this decision was based mainly on the terms of the St!!-te statute there l!-nder consideration . and the surr_ounding circumstances and legislative history of the statute concerned. Another case in the same volume is Jess Larson v. Domestic and Foreign Commerce Corporation (') at p.' 1628, where suit was brought against an officer of the United ' States and it was· held that it was in substance suit against the sovereign government over which the court in the absence. of consent had no jurisdiction. There is no discussion in this case of the royal preroga-. tive having continued in the United States and the decision seems to have turned on some law of that country which provides that suit against the Govern-. ment could not be tried in court in the absence of consent. . As against these decisions I may refer to H. Snowden Marshall v. People of the State of New York (') to show that royal preorgative ·as such. is losing ground in the United States, if nothing more. When dealing with the priority of State over the unsecured creditors in payment of debts 'out of the assets of the debtor, the Supreme Court held that whether the priority wa.s prerogative right or merely right of administration was matter of local law and the decision of the -highest court of the State as to the existence of the right and its incidents would be accepted by tl:i:e Ftideral Supreme Court as conclusive. Again in Guaranty Trust Company of New York v. United States.of America('), the Supreme Court held .that the immunity of the sovereign from the operation of statutes. of1imitation, although originally matter of royal prerogative, was now based upon the public policy of protecting the citizens of the State from the loss of their public rights and revenues through the

Director of Rationing &-Distribution

I V. • The Corporahot. of (alcutta & Others

Wanchoo ].

(1) (1949) 337 U.S. 346: 93 L. Ed. 14b6.

(2) (1949) 337 U.S. 682; 93 L. Ed. 1628.

(3) (1920) 254 U.S. 38o: 65 L. Ed. 315.

(4) (1938) 304 U.S. 126: 82 L. Ed. 1'24·

Director of Ratio111ng &-Di-~trif;ution v. The Corporation of Calculla 6- Others Wanclsoo ].

negligence of the officers of the State, showing that some of those immunities which in England were claimed as royal prerogatives, though preserved in the United States, were so preserved for other reasons. Besides it must not be forgotten that though tbe Crown no longer remained in the United Stat~s after the attainment of independence the American colonies out of which the United States arose were colonised by English settlors who carried the common law of England with them to America with the result that the first Constitution of some of the States (like New York) after independence provided that the common law of England which together with the statutes con-stituted the law of the colony before independence Rhould be and continue to be the law of the State subject t-0 such alterations as its legislature might thereafter make: (see H. Snowden Marshall v. Peopl.e of the State of New York('), at p. 317). That may account for the United States recognising some of those prerogative rights which were in force in England; though even so, the basis for such recogni-tion is now more the law or public policy than any royal prerogative as such. The position in our country was somewhat different. We had the King but the common law of England did not, as already indicated, apply as rule in this country. Now that the King has also gone, there BOO!llS to oo no reason for continu-ing the royal prerogatives after January 26, 1950.Further it appears to me that the royal p(erogative where it deals with substantive rights of the Crown as against its subjects, .as, for example, the priority of Crown debts over debts of the same nature owing to the subject, stands on different footing from the royal prerogative put forward in the present case, which ill really no more thar. a. rule of construction of statutes paBBed by Parliament. Where, for example, a. royal prerogative dealing with substantive right has 00en accepted by the Courts in India. as applioa.ble here also, it becomes law in force which will continue in force under Art. 372(1) of the Constitution. But (1) (1930) 254 U.S. 38<>: 65 L. l!d. 313.

where the royal prerogative is merely rule of c9n. struction of statutes based on the existence of the Crowl'.\ in England and for historical reasons, I fail ~o see why in democratic republic, the courts should not follow the ordinary principle of construction that no one is exempt from the operation of statute unless the statute expressly grants the exemption or the exemption arises ·by necessary implication. On the whole 'therefore I am. of opinion that the proper rule of construction which should now be applied, at any rate after January 26, 1950, is that. the State in India whether in the Centre or in the States is bound by the law qnless there is an express exemption in favour of the State or an exemption can. be inferred by necessary implication. The view taken by the Calcutta. High Court in this connection should lie accepted and the view expressed by the Privy Council in Province of Bombay v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Bombay ([1]) should no longer be accepted as the rule for construction of statutes pas~ed by Indian legislatures.

Directoy of Rationing&. Distribution.

The Corporation of Calcutta & Others

Wanchoo j;

Let m·e then com~ to the question wbether on the view I have taken of the rule of construction, the prosecution in this case can be allowed to continue. There is nothing in the Act of 1923 or in the Act of 1951 exempting the State specifically from any of the provisions of the Calcutt!/' Municipal Act. In this case the State is being prosecuted under s. 488 (or s. 537 now) and that section provides for fine for breach of s. 386 (or s. ~7 now). The provision,is penal provision and immediately question arises whether the State as such, l!>part from its individual officers as natural. persons, is liable to prosecution__ under the criminal law or has to· be exempted froin the operation of the provisions of criminal statutes by necessary implication. criminal proceeding general. ly ends with punishment which may bejmprisonment, or fine, or both. Now it does ncrt require .any elaborate reason to realise that the Sta.te as such cannot be sentenced to imprisonment because there is no way of

(1) (1946) L.R. 73 I.A. a71.

HJO

1960 keeping it in prison; therefore, by necessary implica-tion, the Sta.t,e is exempt from all penal statutes and Director nj Raiio .. ing 6 provisions providing for sentences of imprisonment or Disfrib1.i10" death. Then come those penal provisions which v. impose fines, like the present. case, and the question is The Corpor•ho• whether in such case also the State must be deemed 0! Co1<ut1a by necessary implication to be exempt from the penal 6 Others provision. Generally speaking fines when inflicted by WaNchoo ]. courts are realised by the State and go to th£> coffers of the State. In effect, therefore if the Sta.to as such is to be prosecuted under penal statute imposing fine the result is that the Court will sentence the State to fino which will go t-0 the State itself. It is obdous that if such is the result of prosecution, namely that the accuHcd gets the fine, the intention could never be that such prosecution should bo launched. Therefore where tho penalty is fine and the fine goes to the State, it must be held that by necessary impli-cation the law does not intend the State to be pro-secuted for such an offence. In the present case I find that under s. 81 of the Act of 1923 (or the corres-ponding s. 115 of the Act of 1951) the fines impose.cl by the Magistrate will not go to the Corporation but in the usual way to the State. under the: circum-stances whatever ether methods may be possible for enforcing the provisions of s. 386 (or s. 437 now) against the State it cannot be intended to be enforced by prosecution resulting in fine which would gc to the St.ate itself. In these circumstances it must be held t!>at. b,\' neces.'11\ry implication tho State is exempt from the penal provisions contained in s. 4S& (uow s. 537). I would therefore allow the appeal, set a.side the judgment of the High Court 'and restore the order of acquittal by the Magistrate.

Appeal allcwed.