And on the reasoning adopted in Raj Krushna Bose v. Binod Kanungo (1) with reference to section 33 (2), the conclusion must follow that such appointment does not per se contravene section 123(8). The result is that with reference to sales for local consumption made in the course of inter- State trade, the law under the Constitution is exactly what it is in America and indeed, the similarity is too striking to be merely accidental. the Rajpramukh and was authenticated by the Chief Secretary to Government.
The petitioner having failed to avail himself of the opportunity to show cause against the action proposed against Advocate Chandigarh
him, a draft of the proceedings relating to the enquiry was submitted to H. Nor is there anything Lawyer in Chandigarh
in the nature of the duties of a polling agent, which necessarily brings him within the prohibition enacted in that section. There was no provision in this new section of the Ordinance, corresponding to section 4(2) of the Act under which cases of offences specified in the schedule pending before ordinary courts could be transferred to special courts.
In spite of the fact that the petitioner was granted the time which he originally asked for and this was further extended by a fortnight, he furnished no explanation and did not show any cause against the notice issued to him. On that date he again asked for further time till the 31 st October 1951 but this request was not granted. On the 10th September 1951 when the time granted at his own request 1017 was due to expire, he again applied for further time till the 10th November 1951. the Rajpramukh oil the 30th September 1951 and thereupon an order was issued for his removal from service from the date of suspension and debarring him from reappointment to service.
Time as prayed for was allowed. The grounds covered by the two provisions are distinct and separate. 781 tion in respect of trade and commerce within the State, and reading that with the language of the Explanation that the sales covered by it are deemed to take place in the State, the inference is irresistible that the intention of the Constitution-makers was to bring those sales within the exclusive jurisdiction of the 7 State for purposes of taxation under Entry 54.
So long as the polling agent confines himself to his work as such agent of merely identifying the voters, it cannot be said that section 123(8) has, in any manner, been infringed. Rule 12 Chandigarh Advocates
of the Representation of the People (Con duct of Elections and Election Petitions) Rules, 1951, prescribes the formalities to be observed in the appointment of such agents, and Form 6 framed thereunder provides for the polling agent signing a declaration that he would do nothing forbidden by section 128.
The question, for our consideration is whether the prohibition created by section 12 is attracted to the facts of the present case. The duty of a polling agent is merely to identify the voter, and that could not by itself and without more, be said to further the election prospects of the candidate. He was allowed further time till the 24th September 1951. All these pending cases, therefore, could not be allotted to or tried by a special court under the Act.
The position may thus be summed up: Article 286(2) applies to sales in the course of inter- State trade. This defect was removed and the chance of discrimination eliminated by the Amending Ordinance VIII of 1952, which was afterwards enacted into Act XII of 1952. The sales which fall within the Explanation are intrastate sales. Thus, there is nothing in the Act or in the rules barring the appointment of a Government servant as a polling agent.
Section 4 of the Ordinance replaced section 4 of the Act and sub-section (1) of this section laid down that "notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 or in any other law, the offences specified in the schedule shall be triable by special courts only". It seems clear that in order to obviate this difficulty section 12 was introduced in Act XII of 1950, which replaced Ordinance 1033 VIII of 1952, and the section expressly provides that the Act would not apply to proceedings pending before any court other than a special court on the date that Ordinance VIII of 1952 came into force.
That -section enjoins that every agent shall maintain and aid Lawyers in Chandigarh
maintaining the secrecy of the voting. The order was in proper form as having been made by H. Each has operation within its own sphere, and there is no conflict between them. This in sense was anomalous and as the position created by section 4(1) of the Ordinance was that offences specified in the schedule were compulsorily triable by special courts, a difficulty could legitimately arise with regard to cases pending before ordinary courts and the question could be raised whether the ordinary courts would have jurisdiction at all to proceed with trial of these cases after the enactment of section 4(1) of the Ordinance.
The petitioner on receipt of this notice applied for time till the 10th September 1951 for showing cause. XLIII of 1951 empowers a candidate to"appoint in the prescribed manner such number of agents and relief agents as may be prescribed to act as polling agents of such candidate at each polling station".