Report No. 60
12.38. Gujarat Case.-
In a Gujarat case,1 it was held with reference to section 23(5) that the rule-making authority must purport to make rules after previous publication, and the words "purporting to have been made", must go with the expression "after previous publication". It was stated that, since section 23 prescribes the lengthy procedure of previous publication, sub-section (5) dispenses with proof that such procedure has been followed, only in cases where the rules purport to be made after previous publication. The actual decision in this case was overruled by a later decision of the same High Court2 but the construction placed on sub-section (5) was not discussed in the later case.
1. See C.J. Shah v. Chhabalal, 1968 Cr LJ 253 (254), para. 1. (Guj).
2. M.R. Pandya v. Chimanlal, AIR 1968 Guj 80, paras. 13 and 14.
Back
