Ogale Glass Works Ltd. In Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh's case (1) this Court had not to consider whether an ex post facto law imposing a minimum fine for an offence with respect to which an unlimited fine could be imposed by the law in existence at the time of the commission of the offence contravened the provisions of Art. That' rule provides that a mining lease granted by a private person shall be subject to certain conditions therein specified. But it was submitted on behalf of the respondents that to the present case the judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v.

197 of the Code was necessary for the prosecution of Henderson and the absence of such sanction vitiated the joint trial. 20 of the Constitution had, been contravened was rejected and it was held that the criminal law relating to offences charged against the accused at the time of their commission was substantially the same as obtained at the time of the conviction and sentence under the Indian Penal Code.

This Court, however, did not decide whether the total fine imposed was greater than what could be imposed under the law as it was at the commission of the offence. 9(1) of the West Bengal Criminal Law (Amendment) Act of 1949. In Kedar Nath Bajoria's case (2), in addition to the sentence imposed under the ordinary law, the first appellant was fined Rs. 50,000, including the sum of Rs. The prohibition under the Article was not confined to the passing or the validity of the Law firms in Supreme Cour of Indiat but extended to the conviction or :the sentence and was based on its character as ex post facto law and therefore fullest effect must be given to the actual words used in the Article.

The argument is wholly untenable. The effect of this rule is, as it were, to insert statutorily some new terms in the lease itself. As no clarification came from the MoF, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim for deduction under Section 42(1)(b) and 42(1)(c) of the Act. The contention that the provisions of Art. The MoPNG wrote to Ministry of Finance (MoF) accepting the aforesaid omissions and requested the MoF to give clarification in this behalf.

Reference to the decision in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh's case(1)was made and this Court held that, in any event, the fine to the extent of Rs. However, while making assessment for the Assessment Year 2005-06, the Assessing Officer observed that there were no such provisions made in the Agreements which were signed between the Central Government and the appellant and in the absence of such stipulation in the agreement, the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of deductions under Section 42 of the Act.

The Income Tax Authorities extended the benefit of granting deductions under the aforesaid provisions from the year 2001-02 (assessment years onwards) when the appellant commenced commercial production in the aforesaid two oil fields. This Court, however, held that Ordinance was not ail ex post facto law. In other words, this rule does not do anything more than add some terms to the lease. It assumed that Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh's case (1) supported the contention of the first appellant in that case.

XLVIII of 1949) was an ex post facto law. 20 of the Constitution must be taken to prohibit a conviction or subjection to penalty after the Constitution in respect of ex post facto law whether the same was a pre-Constitutional law or a post- Constitutional law. 234(1) and 239(b) of the Code could not be combined to try a person charged with three offences of cheating with another charged with abetment in respect thereof in a single trial and (4) sanction under S.

There the assessee was a company which was (1) (1904) I. At this stage, the appellant preferred writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the High Court of Delhi with the following prayers. 47,550 received by him as required by s. The basis of the decision was that the real liability under the contract was contingent, not actual, since the obligations of the company were not such that it might be sued for the cost of 'replacements at current prices, but only for possible damages for breach of contract in the event of the factory owner preferring a claim under the contract, and since no legal liability could arise until such a claim was made, the liability had-to be regarded as contingent and not deductible.

192 of the Court below) held not to be deductible. Realising that the Agreements did not contain such a provision, the appellant wrote to the MoPNG stating that though there was such an arrangement agreed to as per the understanding between the two parties, non-inclusion thereof was an inadvertent omission in the Contracts that were signed. When, however, the lease is determined under the second proviso, these terms must also fall with it. The contention of the State in the appeals preferred by it was that the imposition of the 'compulsory' fines by the Tribunal was perfectly valid in law and the High Court was in error in setting aside the same.

112 In the case of Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh (1), referred to above, this Court held that Art. The first condition thus laid down is that the term of the lease should be renewed at the option of the lessee for one period not exceeding the duration of the original lease. It had been urged in that case that the Vindhya Pradesh Ordinance (No. 47,550 would be set aside. It is significant that in directing that the appeal would be heard in due course on merits this Court stated that it would be open to the Court in case (1) [1953] S.