Occupied Field.

Doctrine of Occupied Field is attracted in a variety of ways. For example if a special law covers a subject, general law stands automatically excluded because that field of law is already occupied.

Claim of Gratuity made  under Section 33C-2 Industrial Disputes Act instead of Payment of Gratuity Act — Validity.

It was urged that the Payment of Gratuity Act is a self-contained code incorporating all the essential provisions relating to payment of gratuity which can be claimed under that Act, and its provisions impliedly exclude recourse to any other statute for that purpose.

Supreme Court accepted this contention. There is anther example of doctrine of occupied field.

In this case regarding prohibition on manufacture and sale on Gutka (Pan Masala with chewing tobacco), under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, it was contended that Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003, (Act 34 of 2003), referable to entry 52, List I and entry 18, List III to the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India,  occupies the entire field in relation to tobacco. Therefore the State Government could not do indirectly what it can not do directly. Supreme Court of India accepted the proposition and quashed the notification under PFA Act.

Though it was not relevant in this judgement, Article 254 of Constitution of India also deals with the aspect of occupied field and any Union/Central legislation would have effect of repealing the State Legislation on the same subject if it is in conflict with Central legislation.

Read more details about this doctrine at LawMystry.com

Food Adulteration

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act

The Act is a welfare legislation to prevent health hazards by consuming adulterated food. The mens rea is not an essential ingredient. It is a social evil and the Act prohibits commission of the offences under the Act. The essential ingredient is sale to the purchaser by the vendor. It is not material to establish the capacity of the person vis a vis the owner of the shop to prove his authority to sell the adulterated food exposed for sale in the shop. It is enough for the prosecution to establish that the person who sold the adulterated article of food had sold it to the purchaser (including the Food Inspector) and that Food Inspector purchased the same in strict compliance with the provisions of the Act.
The sanctioning authority has to consider the material placed before it whether the offence of adulteration of food was committed and punishable under the Act. Once that satisfaction is reached and the authority is competent to grant the sanction, the sanction is valid. It is not necessary for the sanctioning authority to consider that the person sold is the owner, servant, agent or partner or relative of the owner or was duly authorised in this behalf. (See State of Orissa v. K. Rajeshwar Rao, 1992 CrLJ 300 : 1992 AIR (SC) 240 : 1992 (Cr) 177 : 1992 CAR 45 : 1992 CrLR (SC) 390 : 1991(3) Crimes 868)