SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALORE versus BAHUBALI

SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALORE versus BAHUBALI

Provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 are inconsistent with Rule 126-P(2)(ii) of the Defence of India Rules, which prescribes a mandatory minimum sentence. Section 43 of the Defence of India Act, 1962, being a later Act and containing a non-obstante clause, prevails; thus, the benefit of probation cannot be claimed by offenders under the Defence of India Rules. The expiry of the Defence of India Act does not remove liabilities and penalties incurred while it was in force.

Parties
Appellant: Superintendent, Central Excise, Bangalore; Respondent: Bahubali
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
05 October 1978
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave From Judgment and Order Dated 23 7 1971 of the Mysore High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 1969
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Probation of Offenders Act—applicability, Defence of India Act—minimum Sentence, Gold Control—contravention, Effect of Repeal—penalty and Liabilities
Criminal Law Probation of Offenders Act—applicability Defence of India Act—minimum Sentence Gold Control—contravention Effect of Repeal—penalty and Liabilities

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Superintendent, Central Excise, Bangalore

Appellant

Bahubali

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave From Judgment and Order Dated 23 7 1971 of the Mysore High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 1969

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 apply to offences under the Defence of India Act and Rules which prescribe a minimum sentence of imprisonment
  2. 2 Whether the bar under the Defence of India Act, 1962 operates after its repeal

Ratio Decidendi

Provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 are inconsistent with Rule 126-P(2)(ii) of the Defence of India Rules, which prescribes a mandatory minimum sentence. Section 43 of the Defence of India Act, 1962, being a later Act and containing a non-obstante clause, prevails; thus, the benefit of probation cannot be claimed by offenders under the Defence of India Rules. The expiry of the Defence of India Act does not remove liabilities and penalties incurred while it was in force.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Impugned judgment and order of the High Court set aside
  • Case remitted to High Court for disposal of the respondent’s revision on merits according to law