IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2009 / 8TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 37980 of 2008(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SIVADASAN, 45 YEARS S/O.PERNJAN, MOOTHEDATHU HOUSE, PUZHIKALA, CHAVAKADU BY ADV. SRI.V.JOHN SEBASTIAN RALPH SRI.RENJITH B.MARAR SRI.L.RAJESH NARAYAN SMT.LAKSHMI.N.KAIMAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, THRISSUR REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE VADAKKEKADU POLICE STATION(CR.NO.285/07), REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ----------------------- W.P.(C).No.37980 OF 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of January, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner is the registered owner of a tempo van bearing Reg. No. KL 02/3011. It is stated that the 2nd respondent seized 9 liters of Indian Made Foreign Liquor from the van and a crime was registered against the petitioner under Section 55 (a) and (i) of the Abkari Act. Ext.P2 is the FIR, Exts.P3 and P4 are the FI Statement and the Mahazar. The 2nd respondent reported the incident to the Excise Department and accordingly proceedings were initiated, and finally Ext.P1 order was passed under Section 67B of the Abkari Act, confiscating the vehicle. It is in these circumstances, this writ petition is filed praying for a declaration that Section 67B of the Kerala Abkari Act is unconstitutional as it is repugnant to the provisions contained in Cr.P.C. Consequential reliefs are also sought for. WP(c).No.37980/08 :2: 2. When the case was taken up for admission counsel raised two contentions. The first was that Section 67B of the Abkari Act is repugnant to the provisions contained in the Cr.P.C. and therefore is unconstitutional. It was also contended that the seizure of the vehicle is a forfeiture of property and that the same has been omitted by the Indian Penal Code (Amendment) Act 1921 and therefore Section 67B of the Abkari Act which enables forfeiture of property, is hit by the bar contained in Section 4 of the Cr.P.C. 3. As far as the contention regarding repugnancy of Section 67B is concerned, even according to the counsel for the petitioner the Abkari Act is legislated under Entry 8 of List II to the 7th schedule to the Constitution and the Cr.P.C. is a legislated under Entry 2 of List III. Thus both the legislations, are not subject matters covered by the entries in the Concurrent List. If that be so, the question is whether repugnancy as contemplated under Article 254 of the Constitution of India arises in this matter. In a series of judgments it has been held by the Apex Court that the WP(c).No.37980/08 :3: question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to legislations falling under the concurrent list. This is on the basis that in clause 1 of Article 254 it has been clearly indicated that the competing legislations must be in respect of matters enumerated in the concurrent list and the question of repugnancy arises only when there is collision between a provision of law made by the State and that made by parliament with respect one of the matters enumerated in the concurrent list. Only in such a case, subject to the provisions of clause (ii) of Article 254 the state law would be void to the extent of repugnancy. In fact this position has been clearly stated in the Apex Court judgment in Bar Council of U.P. vs. State of U.P. (1973 (1) SCC 261), Kerala State Electricity Board vs. Indian Aluminium Company (1976 (1) SCC 466), M. Karunanidhi vs. Union of India (1979 (3) SCC 431) and Vijay Kumar Sharma vs. State of Karnataka (1990 (2) SCC 562). 4. In Karunanidhi’s Case (Supra), it has been held as follows: “It would be seen that so far as clause (1) of Article 254 is concerned it clearly lays down that where there WP(c).No.37980/08 :4: is a direct collision between a provision of law made by State and that made by Parliament with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, then, subject to the provisions of clause (2) the State law would be void to the extent of repugnancy. This naturally means that where both the State and Parliament occupy the field contemplated by Concurrent List then the Act passed by Parliament being prior in point of time will prevail and consequently the State Act will have to yield to the Central Act. In fact, the scheme of the Constitution is a scientific and equitable distribution of legislative powers between Parliament and the Sate Legislatures. First, regarding the matters contained in List I i.e. the Union List to the Seventh Schedule, Parliament alone is empowered to legislate and the State Legislatures have no authority to make any law in respect of the entries contained in List I. Secondly, so far as the Concurrent List is concerned, both Parliament and the State Legislatures are entitled to legislate in regard to any of the entries appearing therein, but this is subject to the condition laid down by Article 254(1) discussed above. Thirdly, so far as the matters in List II i.e. the State List are concerned, the State Legislatures alone are competent to legislate on them and only under certain conditions Parliament can do so. It is, therefore, obvious that in such matters repugnancy may result from the following circumstances: 1. Where the provisions of a Central Act and a State Act in the Concurrent List are fully inconsistent and are absolutely irreconcilable, the Central Act will prevail and the State Act will become void in view of the repugnancy. 2. Where, however, the law passed by the State comes into collision with a law passed by Parliament on an entry in the Concurrent List, the State Act shall prevail to the extent of the repugnancy and the WP(c).No.37980/08 :5: provisions of the Central Act would become void provided the State Act has been passed in accordance with clause (2) of Article 254. 3. Where a law passed by the State Legislature while being substantially within the scope of the entries in the State List entrenches upon any of the entries in the Central List the constitutionality of the law may be upheld by invoking the doctrine of pith and substance if on an analysis of the provisions of the Act it appears that by and large the law falls within the four corners of the State List, and entrenchment if any is purely incidental or inconsequential. 4. Where, however, a law made by the State Legislature on a subject covered by the Concurrent List is inconsistent with and repugnant to a previous law made by Parliament, then such a law can be protected by obtaining the assent of the President under Article 254 (2) of the Constitution. The result of obtaining the assent of the President would be that so far as the State Act is concerned, it will prevail in the State and overrule the provisions of the Central Act in their applicability to the State only. Such a state of affairs exist only until Parliament may at any time make a law adding to, or amending, varying or repealing the law made by the State Legislature under the proviso to Article 254.” This judgment has been followed by the Apex Court in the judgment in National Thermal Power Corporation and Others v. Badri Singh Thakur and Others (2008 (9) SCC 377). 5. Contention of the petitioner is that Section 67B was introduced by the Act 24 of 1975 and that the said Act has not received assent of the President. Hence it is contended that WP(c).No.37980/08 :6: the said provision being repugnant to the provisions of the Cr.P.C. is invalid. As already noticed, petitioner himself says that the Abkari Act is enacted under the legislative power available as per Entry 8 of List II and that the Cr.P.C. is legislated under Entry 2 of List III. Therefore both the legislations are not enacted under the concurrent list in which event only the question of repugnancy arises. In such a case, there is no question of obtaining the assent of the President to make the law, valid in the State. Hence this contention is totally without any substance. 6. Then it was contended that Section 67B is invalid as forfeiture of property has been omitted by the Indian Penal Code (Amendment) Act 1921 and therefore the special law cannot be enacted in view of the bar contained ion Section 4 of Cr.P.C. 7. Section 4 of the Cr.P.C provides that all offences under Indian Penal Code shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions contained in the Code. Sub Section 2 provides that all offences under any other law shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and other wise dealt with according to the said provisions, but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences. Section 5 of the Cr.P.C. provides that nothing contained in the Code shall, in the absence of a specific provision to the WP(c).No.37980/08 :7: contrary, affect any special law or local law for the time being in force, or any special jurisdiction or power conferred, or any special form of procedure prescribed by any other law for the time being in force. 8. From the aforesaid provisions of the Cr.P.C. it is evident that the provisions of the Abkari Act will not in anyway be affected by the provisions contained in the Code or the I.P.C. If so, Section 4 of Cr.P.C. cannot affect adjudication as provided under Section 67B of the Abkari Act. For the above reasons, I am not in a position to agree with the counsel for the petitioner that Section 67B of the Abkari Act is invalid or unconstitutional. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/