Criminal Appeal No 189 of 1966
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated July 4 1966 of the Patna High Court in Criminal WJC No 11 of 1966
BRL lyengar and UP Singh for the appellants
V A Seyid Muhammad and SP Nayar for respondent No 1
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hegde J
This appeal against the decision of the High Court of Patna in Criminal WJC No 11 of 1966 was brought after obtaining special leave from this Court
The principal question raised herein is whether the investigation which is being carried on against the appellants under sub rule 3  of rule 3 of Sugarcane Control Order 1955 to be hereinafter referred to as the Order read with section 7 of the to be hereinafter referred to as the Act is in accordance with law
The appellants are office bearers of Ms SKG Sugar LtdLauriya
A complaint has been registered against them under sub rule 3 of rule 3 of the Order read with section 7 of the Act on the ground that they have failed to pay to the sellers the price of the sugarcane purchased by them within the time prescribed
The said complaint is being investigated
The appellants are objecting to that investigation on various grounds
They unsuccessfully sought the intervention of the High Court of Patna under article 226 of the Constitution in Cr
WIC No 11 of 1966
Hence this appeal
675 Mr BRL Iyengar appearing for the appellants challenged the validity of the investigation in question on various grounds
We shall now proceed to deal with each one of those grounds
The 1st contention of Mr Iyengar was that sub rule 3 of rule 3 could not have been validly issued under section 3 of the Act
According to him the said section 3 cannot be used for controlling the payment of the price of food crops it can only deal with foodstuffs food crops are outside its scope
This contention has been negatived by the High Court
We agree with the High Court that there is no merit in this contention
Section 2a of the Act defines essential commodity
Sub cl
v of that clause brings foodstuffs within the definition of essential commodity
Clause b of section 2 provides that food crops include sugarcane
The next important provisions in the Act are cls
b and c of section 31
Section 3 1  provides that if the Central Government is of opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do for maintaining or increasing supplies of any essential commodity or for securing their equitable distribution and availability at fair prices it may by order provide for regulating or prohibiting the production
supply and distribution thereof and trade and commerce therein
Sub section
2of that section says that without prejudice to the
generality of the _powers conferred by sub section
I  an order made
thereunder may provide   b for bringing under cultivation any waste or arable land whether appurtenant to a building or not for the growing thereon of food crops generally or of specified food crops and for otherwise maintaining or increasing  the cultivation of food crops generally or of specified food crops Clause c provides for controlling the price at which any essential commodity may be bought or sold
From the scheme of cls
b and c of section 2 and section 3 of the Act it is clear that the Parliament intended to bring under control the cultivation and  sale of food crops
In view of these provisions it is idle to contend that sugarcane does not come within the ambit of the Act
The question whether the cultivation and sale of sugarcane can be regulated under section 3 of the Act came up for the consideration of this Court in Ch
Tika Ramji and Ors
vs The State of UP and Ors1 At pages 432 and 433 of the report it is observed  Act X of 1955 included within the definition of essential commodity foodstuffs which we have seen above would include sugar as well as sugarcane
This Act was enacted by Parliament in exercise
of  the con 1 676 current legislative power under  Entry 33 of List III as amended by the
Constitution Third Amendment Act 1954
Foodcrops were there defined as including crops of sugarcane and section 3 1  gave the Central Government powers to control the production supply and distribution of essential commodities and trade and commerce therein for maintaining or increasing the supplies thereof or for securing their equitable distribution and availability at fair prices
Section 32b empowered the Central Government to provide inter alia for bringing under cultivation any waste or arable land whether appurtenant to a building or not for growing thereon of foodcrops generally or specified foodcrops and section 32c gave the Central Government power for controlling the price at which any essential commodity may be bought or sold
These provisions would certainly bring within the scope of Central legislation the regulation of the production of sugarcane as also the controlling of the price at which sugarcane may be bought or sold and in addition to the Sugar Control Order 1955 which was issued by the Central Government on 27th August 1955 it also issued the Sugarcane Control Order 1955 on the same date investing it with the power to fix the price of sugarcane and direct payment thereof as also the power to regulate the movement of sugarcane
Parliament was well within its powers in legislating in regard to sugarcane and the Central Government was also well within its powers in issuing the Sugarcane Control Order 1955 in the manner it did because all this was in exercise of the concurrent power of legislation under Entry 33 of List III
 It is needless to say anything more on this question
It was next contended by Mr Iyengar that the regulation of the price of sugarcane is expressly dealt with by the Bihar Sugar Factories Control Act 1937 and therefore we should not impliedly spell out the same power from the provisions of the Order and the Act
Mr Iyengar is not right in contending that the power that is sought to be exercised in the instant case is an implied one
Sub rule 3 of rule 3 specifically provides that unless there is an agreement in writing to the contrary between the parties the purchaser shall pay to the seller the price of the sugarcane purchased within 14 days from the date of the delivery of the sugarcane
This is a specific mandate
If the Bihar Act provides anything to the contrary the same must be held to have been 677 altered in view of article 372 of the Constitution which provides that all laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of this Constitution shall continue in force therein until altered or repealed or amended by a competent legislature or other competent authority
Quite clearly the Bihar Act is a pre Constitution Act and it could have continued to be in force only till it was altered repealed or amended by a competent legislature or other competent authority
We shall presently see that the authority that altered or amended that law is a competent one
The next contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants was that the Parliament had no competence to enact any law relating to the control of sugarcane as that subject is within the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the State the same being a part of agriculture
This contention is again unsustainable in view of Entry 33 of List III of the Constitution which empowers the Parliament to legislate in respect of production supply and distribution of foodstuffs
It is not disputed that the Parliament had declared by law that it is expedient in public interest that it should exercise control over foodstuffs
That being so it was well within the competence of Parliament to enact the Act and hence the power conferred on the Government under section 3 of the Act cannot be challenged as invalid
There is no substance in the contention that the impugned order contravenes the fundamental right guaranteed to the citizens under article 19 1 
No fundamental fight is conferred on a buyer not to pay the price of the goods purchased by him or to pay the same whenever he pleases
The contention that in view of section 11 of the Act no cognizance could have been taken of the offence alleged is premature
This question does not arise in this ease
No court has yet taken cognizance of the case
That stage has Still to come
There is no substance in the contention that the complaint made before the police does not disclose a Cognizable offence and as such the police could not have taken up the investigation of that complaint
The offence complained of is punishable with three years  imprisonment and as such it falls within the 2nd Sch
of the Cr
PC and consequently the same is a cognizable offence as defined in section 41f of the Cr
Hence it was open to the police to investigate the same
For the reasons mentioned above we are unable to accept any of the contention advanced on behalf of the appellants
In the result this appeal fails and the same is dismissed
GC Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The appellants were the office bearers of a sugar concern
A complaint with the police was registered against them under sub rule 3 of Rule 3 of the Sugarcane Control Order 1955 read with section 7 of the  On the ground that they had failed to pay to the sellers within the time prescribed the price of the sugarcane purchased by them
Objecting to the investigation of the alleged offence the appellants filed a writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution but the High Court  refused to interfere
By special leave they came to this Court
The contentions urged on behalf of the appellants were i that sub rule 3 of rule 3 could not have been validly issued under section 3 of the because the latter section applied only to foodstuffs and not to food crops ii that the regulation of the price of sugarcane being expressly dealt with by the Bihar Sugar Factories Control Act 1937 the same power could not by implication be spelt out from the provisions of the Order and the Act iii that Parliament had no competence to enact any law relating to the control of sugarcane as that subject was within the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the State the same being a part of agriculture
iv that there was violation of the fundamental right under article 191 of the Constitution by the impugned order
v that in view of section 11 of the Act no cognizance could have been taken of the offence vi that the complaint made before the police did not disclose a cognizabIe offence and as such the police was not empowered to investigate the complaint
HELD i In view of the scheme of sections 2 and 3 of the Act and the judgment of this Court in Ch
Tika Ramji s case the contention that food crops were outside the purview of section 3 of the Act must be rejected
675 B G Ch
Tika Ramji  Ors
vs State oUP  Ors  applied
ii The power sought to be exercised in the present case was not implied one for sub rule 3 of rule 3 gives a specific mandate that unless there is an agreement in writing to the contrary between the parties the purchaser shall pay to the seller the price of the sugarcane purchased within 14 days
676 G H 674 Even if the Bihar Sugar Factories Control Act 1937 provides anything to the contrary it must be held to have been altered by a competent authority namely Parliament under Art 372 of the Constitution
677 A B iii Parliament was competent to enact the and to confer power on the Government under section 3 of the Act as Entry 33 of List III of the Constitution empowers Parliament to legislate in respect of production supply and distribution of foodstuffs
677 C D iv There was no contravention of article 191 because no fundamental right is conferred on a buyer not to pay the price of the goods purchased by him or to pay the same whenever he pleases
677 E v The plea based on section 11 of the Act was premature because no court had yet taken cognizance of the case
677 F vi The offence complained of was punishable with three years  imprisonment and fell within the 2nd Schedule of the Code of Criminal Procedure
It was therefore a cognizable offence as defined in section 41f of the Code
677 G