ON Criminal Appeal No 182 of 1957
Appeal from the judgment and order dated July 4 1957 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Application for Revision No 278 of 1956 arising out of the judgment and order dated the 3rd January 1956 of the Presidency Magistrate 16 Court Esplanade Bombay in Criminal Case No 1913P of 1955
N Srilvastava and J B Dadachanji for the appellant
G C Mathethur and R H Dhebar for the respondent
286 1959
May 14
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by lMAM J
The appellant was convicted under r6a of the Indian Passport Rules 1950 hereinafter reffered to as the Rules made under section 3 of the Indian Passport Act 34 of 1920 hereinafter referred to as the Act and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs 100
The High Court in exercising its revisional jurisdiction upheld a fine of the conviction but reduced the sentence to Rs 25
it granted a certificate to the appellant that the case was a fit one for appeal to this Court
it is beyond dispute now that the appellant is a citizen of India
Admittedly he entered the territories of India without a passport The sole question for determination is whether his act in so entering the territories of India amounted to an offence punishable under r 6a of the Rules
The Act was passed in 1920 and has been the subject of amendment and modification thereafter Its preamble states  whereas it is expedient to take power to require passports of persons entering India it is hereby enacted _ as follows  Passport  has been defined as a passport for the time being in force issued or renewed by the prescribed authority and satisfying the conditions prescribed relating to the class of passport to which it belongs
Section 3 states 1 The Central Government may make rules requiring that persons entering India shall be in possession of passports and for all matters ancillary or incidental to that purpose
2 Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power such rules may a prohibit the entry into India or any part thereof of any person who has not in his possession a passport issued to him b poresscribe the authorities by whom passports must have been issued or renewed and the conditions with which they must comply for the purposes of this Act and c provide for the exemption either absolutely or on any condition of any person or class of persons from any provision of such rules 287 3 Rules made under this section may provide that any contravention thereof or of any order issued under the authority of any such rule shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months or with fine or with both
4 All rules made under this section shall be published in the Official Gazette and shall thereupon have effect as if enacted in this Act
Rule 3 of the Rules states Save as provided in rule 4 no person proceeding from any place outside India shall enter or attempt to enter India by water land or air unless he is in possession of a valid passport conforming to the conditions prescribed in rule 5
 Rule 4 specifies the persons who shall be exempted from the provisions of r 3
Clause b of r 4 exempts members of the Naval Military or Air Forces of India on duty and
members of the family of any such person when accompanying such person to India on a Government transport
Clause e exempts persons domiciled in India proceeding from any of the French establishments in India other than Pondicherry in Kairakal or from any of the Portuguese establishments in India or Pakistan
Clause f exempts persons domiciled in India entering India by land or by air over the Napalese or Tibetan Frontier
Clause h exempts bonafide Mohamedan pilgrims returning from Jeddah or Basra and clause 1 exempts other persons or classes of persons specified by general or special orders of the Central Government
The date of the appellant s entry into India is not known
He was certainly arrested on February 26 1955 and it is his case that he entered India sometime after the decision of this Court in the case of Ebrahim Vazir Mavat vs The State of Bombay
 The judgment of this Court in that case was delivered on February 15 1954 On that basis the appellant entered India sometime after February 15 1954 and before February 26 1955
It is unnecessary to specify in great detail the 1 I954 SCR 933
288 movements of the appellant between November 19 1948 when he went to Karachi for the first time and his arrest on February 26 1955 as his movements during this period are not relevant in determining whether the appellant has committed an offence punishable under r 6a of the Rules
The case must be decided on the footing that sometime before his arrest on February 26 1955 the appellant entered India without a passport
Two contentions were raised on behalf of the appellant 1 that r 3 of the Rules and section 3 of the Act were ultra vires the Constitution in so far as they purported to affect the right of an Indian citizen to enter India without a passport and 2 that on a proper interpretation of the provisions of section 3 of the Act and r 3 of the Rules these provisions did not apply to an Indian citizen
They applied only to non Indian citizens
As to the first contention it was urged that section 3 of the Act and r 3 of the Rules in so far as they purported to relate to an Indian citizen were ultra vires the Constitution as they offended against the provisions of article 191d and e
Article 191d confers the fundamental right on all Indian citizens  to move freely throughout the territory of India and article 191 e  to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India
 This fundamental right however is subject to reasonable restrictions under clause 5 of article 19
In the case of Ebrahim Vazir Mavat vs The State of Bombay supra1 the majority judgment of this Court held that an Indian citizen visiting Pakistan for any purpose whatsoever and returning to India may be required to produce a permit or a passport as the case may be before he can be allowed to enter India and this requirement may well be regarded as a proper restriction upon entry
This Court however held that it was quite a different matter to say that if he enters India without a permit he may on conviction for such offence be ordered to be removed from India
It was the order directing his removal from India which was held by this Court to be tantamount to taking away his fundamental right guaranteed under article 191 c 1  289 to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India
It is clear therefore that so far as this Court is concerned it has already decided that to require an Indian citizen to produce a passport before he can be allowed to enter India may be regarded as a proper restriction upon entering India
This decision is binding on us and we must follow the decision of this Court in the case referred to
It was however urged that as a constitutional question has been raised this matter cannot be decided by judges less than five in number
Therefore the case should be referred to what is described as the Constitution Bench
Article 1453 of the Constitution states that the minimum number of Judges who are to sit for the purpose of deciding any case involving a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution or for the purpose of hearing any reference under Article 143 shall be five
It is clear that no substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution arises in the present case as the very question raised has been decided by a Bench of this Court consisting of five Judges
As the question raised before us has been already decided by this Court it cannot be said that any substantial question of law arises regarding the interpretation of the Constitution
As to the second submission made we have no hesitation in saying that the words used in section 3 of the Act and rr 3 and 4 of the Rules make it quite clear that they apply to every person including an Indian citizen
Under section 31 of the Act the word  Persons  has been stated without any qualification
Under section 32a the words employed are  any person  and in r 3 the words employed are no person
Clause b of r 4 obviously applies to Indian citizens but those mentioned in that clause have been specifically exempted from the operation of r 3
Clause h of r 41 can apply to Indian citizens who are by religion Mohomedan
They have been exempted
Therefore on a reasonable interpretation of section 3 of the Act and rr 3 and 4 of the Rules there can be no manner of doubt that these provisions apply to all persons including Indian citizens
37 290 In our opinion there can be no manner of doubt that the appellant s entry into India without a passport was in contravention of r 3 of the Rules and therefore punishable under r 6a and the appellant was rightly convicted
The appeal is accordingly dismissed
Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The appellant company carried on land developing business and sold land after development on a profit
The whole of the development was not carried out before the land was sold nor the whole of the sale price received in cash at the time of the sale
In the accounting year in question the appellant sold a number of plots and received a portion of the sale price but as it maintained its accounts in the mercantile method it entered the whole price receivable viz Rs 43692 11 9 in credit side though only Rs 29392 11 9 was actually received and debited a sum of Rs 24809 being the estimated expenditure for the developments it had by terms incorporated in the deeds of sale under taken to carry out within six months thereof although no part of it was actually spent during that year
The appellant claimed a deduction of the said sum of RS
24809 in computation of the profits and gains of its business during the assessment year
The Income tax Officer while accepting the method of accounting adopted by the appellant disallowed the claim on the ground that no expenses had actually been incurred and the estimate was only a probable one
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner as well as the Income tax Appellate Tribunal confirmed the disallowance on appeals and the High Court on a reference under section 661 of the Income tax Act held against the appellant
The question was whether the deduction claimed was a legally allowable expense of the year in question
Held that the liability which was undertaken by the appel lant under the deeds of sale was an accrued liability and not a contingent one
Although the time of six months was not of the essence of the contract the undertaking it had given was unconditional and absolute in terms and the liability must be held to have accrued on the execution of the deeds of sale though it was to be discharged at a future date
Keshav Mills Ltd vs Commissioner of Income tax Bombay 1953 S CR 950 referred to
Peter Meychant Ltd vs Stedeford Inspector of Taxes distinguished
24 186 The difficulty in estimating such a liability for purposes of debit under the mercantile system of accounting could be no ground for treating an accrued liability as a conditional one since it was always open to the Income tax authorities to arrive a proper estimate thereof having regard to all the circumstances of the case
Gold Coast Selection Trust Ltd vs Humnphrey Inspector Taxes 19481 AC 459 referred to
Regard being had therefore to the accepted commercial practice and trading principles the estimated deduction even if it did not come under any of the specific provisions Of section 102 of the Act was certainly an allowable deduction under section 101 of the Act there being no prohibition either express or implied against it in the Act and consequently the question must be answered in the affirmative
Badridas Daga vs The Conimissioncr of Income tax  Russel vs Town and Country Bank Ltd  Gyesham Life Assurance Society vs Styles  Pondichcry Railway co Ltd vs Commissioner of Income tax Madras 1913 LR 58 A 239 and Income tax Commissioner vs Chitnavis 1932 LR 59 IA 290 referred to