TMI Blog1976 (10) TMI 155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd many other Officers of similar rank were specially empowered by the Central Government under Section 7(1) to make complaints in respect of offences punishable under the Act. The Division Bench was inclined to take judicial notice of the notification, but it felt that it could not do so if the view taken in Mathuradas v. State, AIR 1954 Nag 296 = ILR (1954) Nag 578 was correct. As in the opinion of the Division Bench Mathuradas' ease was wrongly decided, it referred the appeal to a larger Bench for a reconsideration of the view taken in that case. This is how this appeal has come up before us. 2. In Mathuradas' case (AIR 1954 Nag 296) a Division Bench of this Court held that a notification fixing the retail price of yarn under the Cotton Textiles (Control) Order, 1948, was not a part of law of the land and judicial notice could not be taken thereof under Section 57(1) of the Evidence Act, 1872. There are also some general observations in the case that a notification is not included within the term law , It was, however, accepted that if a notification is published in the Gazette, production of the Gazette printed under the authority of the Government will be sufficien ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act which has a bearing in this case is Section 78 which in so far as material is as under : 78. The following public documents may be proved as follows :-- * * * * * (1) Acts, orders or notifications of the Central Government in any of its departments, or of the Crown Representative or of any State Government or any department of any State Government, by the records of the departments, certified by the heads of those departments-respectively, or by any document purporting to be printed by order of any such Government or, as the case may be, of the Crown Representative. 5. A comparison of Sections 57 and 78 of the Evidence Act goes to show that acts, orders or notifications of the Central or any State Government require proof in the manner prescribed by Section 78, unless they amount to law in force and can be taken judicial notice of under Section 57. The Act, however, does not contain any definition of law. The Act also does not provide as to when an order or a notification amounts to law and this question has, therefore, to be solved on general principles. Many definitions of law have been formulated at various times by philosophers and jurists, but there is ye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthority under the Constitution to delegate subordinate legislative functions to the Executive. As compared to statutes, the volume of delegated legislation, both in England and India, has immensely increased and it has been well said that in mere bulk, the child now dwarfs the parent . (Alien, Law in the Making, 7th Edn., p. 540) Delegated legislation by the Executive under statutory powers conferred by the Legislature appears under various names such as rules, regulations, orders, notifications, directions, schemes, circulars, bye-laws etc. (Delegated Legislation in India, Indian Law Institute, p. 1). The Committee on Ministers' Powers in England in 1932 noticed the confusion in the nomenclature of delegated legislation and deprecated the indiscriminate use of these expressions. The Committee recommended that the expression 'regulation' should be used to describe the instrument by which power to make substantive law is exercised, and the expression 'rule' to describe the Instrument by which the power to make law about procedure is exercised. The Committee further recommended that the expression 'order' should be used to describe the instrument of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment of the United Kingdom or any Order in Council, rule or other instrument made under such Act . These definitions go to confirm that under our legal order law does not include only legislative enactments but it also includes rules, orders, notifications etc. made or issued by the Government or any subordinate authority in the exercise of delegated legislative power. In Edward Mills Co. v. State of Ajmer, AIR 1955 SC 25 = 1955 SCR 735, the question before the Supreme Court was whether an order made by the Governor-General under Section 94(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935, investing the Chief Commissioner with the authority to administer a Province was continued by Article 372 of the Constitution being a law in force at the commencement thereof. The Supreme Court adverted to the definitions of existing law and Indian law mentioned earlier and observed that there was no material difference between existing law , Indian law and law in force and that these expressions were wide enough to include not merely a legislative enactment but also any regulation or order which had the force of law. But it was pointed out that an order must be a legislative and not an execu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Government or the Commissioner of the Division having territorial jurisdiction over the area in which the land is situate were deemed to be substituted and in other words the Act was deemed to be pro tanto amended. The Court further observed as follows: This is not to say that every order issued by an executive authority has the force of law. If the order is purely administrative, or is not issued in exercise of any statutory authority it may not have the force of law. But where a general order is issued even by an executive authority which confers power exercisable under a statute, and which thereby in substance modifies or adds to the statute, such conferment of powers must be regarded as having the force of law. One more point which is worth noticing in Jayantilal Amratlal's case is that the Supreme Court also observed that it was open to Parliament by appropriate legislation to make an express provision in the Land Acquisition Act to provide that the powers under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act and the power to appoint the Collector be exercised by an officer to be named by the appropriate Government. It was further observed that in such a situation : Issue of a not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . G. S. R. 1512 issued under Section 7(1) of the Telegraph Wires Act which specially empowers the Station Officer Rehli and many other officers to make complaints in respect of offences under the Act. While enacting Section 7(1), the Central Legislature could have enumerated in the section itself the officers who would be competent to make complaints for offences under the Act. Instead of doing that the legislature has authorised the Central Government to specially empower officers for that purpose. A notification issued by the Central Government in exercise of this power supplements Section 7(1) and is legislative in nature. The notification read with Section 7(1) is part of the law of procedure that only Central Government and the officers specified in the notification can make complaints for offences under the Act. A Criminal Court is bound to give effect to this law. It cannot refuse to take cognizance of a complaint made by an Officer mentioned in the notification and cannot take cognizance of a complaint made by an officer not mentioned in the notification. In our opinion, therefore, the notification amounts to law. The learned Government Advocate has produced before us a boo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
