Trace Your Case

D.N GHOSH AND OTHERS V. ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE AND OTHERS

D.N. Ghosh and Others v. Additional Sessions Judge and Others AIR 1959 Cal 208

ISSUE:

  • Whether the delegation of power by the Legislature to a non-legislative body to make rules and regulations is an unconstitutional exercise of delegated power?

RULE:

  • Exclusion of evidence crucial to a defendant’s case can be challenged if its exclusion lacks a valid legal basis, as this undermines the right to a fair trial.

FACTS:

  • Petitioners are owners of coal fields (“Diguli Colliery”) Burdwan. Due to non-profitability, the petitioners entered into an agreement with Sri A.K. Goswami.
  • The agreement was aimed at more efficient operation of the property. Goswami was responsible for the operations of the colliery.
  • Clause 7 of the Agreement laid down that Goswami was to pay 66-2/3% of the net profits every six months to the petitioners.
  • Additionally, if profits exceeded Rs. 1000 per month, Goswami would be entitled to a further 10% of the profits.
  • Thereafter, the Coal Mines Provident Fund & Bonus Schemes Act 1948 (“Act”) came into operation.
  • Section 3 of the Act empowers the Central Government to create a Coal Mines Provident Fund Scheme for employees.
  • Pursuant this, the Indian Government framed the Scheme which specified employer contributions, the rate and manner of contributions and how they could be recovered. Clause 70 prescribes the circumstances under which a person may be punishable.
  • A complaint was lodged against the petitioners for violation of the provisions of the Act and the Scheme.
  • The Magistrate convicted the petitioners under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On appeal, the petition was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge.
  • The petitioners contend that the power to impose penalty for violation of the provisions constitutes improper delegation and is therefore void.

HELD:

  • The Calcutta High Court held that Section 9 is not ultra vires and Section 70 of the Scheme does not constitute an unconstitutional exercise of a delegated power.
  • The Court noted that while the power to prescribe penalties and enforce them was delegated to the Government, the Legislature had fixed the limits for the penalties and laid down the standards to be followed.
  • The Court emphasized that the Legislature maintained sufficient control over the delegation, ensuring it did not exceed the permissible limits of delegation.
  • Consequently, the appeal failed and was dismissed.