1951 (5) TMI 3 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether there are sufficient grounds for declaring the whole Act [the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 (Bombay Act No. XXV of 1949)] to be invalid?

Held that:- It is quite clear that the provisions held to be invalid are not inextricably bound up with the remaining provisions of the Act, and it is difficult to hold that the legislature would not have enacted the Act at all without including that part which is found to be ultra vires. The Act still remains substantially the Act as it was passed, i.e., an Act amending and consolidating the law relating to the promotion and enforcement of the policy of prohibition and also the Abkari law in the Province of Bombay.

In the result, the following provisions of the Act declared only to be invalid :--

(1) Clause (c) of section 12, so far as it affects the possession of liquid medicinal and toilet preparations containing alcohol.

(2) Clause (d)of section 12, so far as it affects the selling or buying of such medicinal and toilet preparations containing alcohol.

(3) Clause (b) of section 13, so far as it affects the consumption or use of such medicinal and toilet preparations containing alcohol.

(4) Clause (a) of section 23, so far as it prohibits the commendation of any intoxicant or hemp.

(5) Clause (b) of section 23, in entirety.

(6) Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 24, so far as it prohibits commendation of any intoxicant or hemp. (7) Sub-section (1) of section 136, in entirety. (8) Clauses (b), (c), (e), and (f) of sub-section (2) of section 136, in their entirety.

Rest of the provisions of the Act are valid, and also some of the provisions of the Act to be invalid does not affect the validity of the Act as it remains.