http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 37
PETITIONER: BEHRAM KHURSHED PESIKAKA
Vs.
RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF BOMBAY.REFERENCE UNDER ARTICLE 145(3) OF THE CO
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19/02/1954
BENCH:
ACT: Constitution of India, Arts. 13 and 141-Statute declared unconstitutional-Effect of-Declaration in Balsara’s case--Effect of-If the decision throws onus on the accused- Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 (Bombay Act XXV of 1949), ss. 2 (24),13 (b), 66(b).
HEADNOTE: Held (Per MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN C. J., MUKHERJEA, VIVIAN BOSE and GHULAM HASAN JJ., S. R. DAS J. dissenting) that the effect of the declaration in the case of The State of Bombay and Another v. F. N. Balsara(1) that clause (b) of s. 13 of the Bombay Prohibition Act (XXV of 1949) is void under Art. 13(1) of the Constitution in so far as it affects the consumption or use of liquid medicinal or toilet preparations containing alcohol, is to render part of s. 13(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act inoperative, ineffective and ineffectual and thus unenforceable. In view of the constitutional invalidity of a part of s. 13(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act having been declared void by the Supreme Court, that part of the section ceased to have legal effect in judging cases of citizens and must be regarded as null and void in determining whether a citizen was guilty of an offence. The clear enactment of Art. 141 of the Constitution leaves n...