Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
Statement of Objects and Reasons. – Up to 1905 the possession, manufacture, circula- tion, distribution, sale, import, export and transport of the excisable intoxicants was being controlled/governed under the Excise Act, 1895 (XII of 1986). From the public and the offi- cials of the Deptt. many difficulties were being expressed in effecting a proper control and distribution and in checking the offences. While the public was interested in any easy excess to the controlled intoxicants, at the same time on the other hand the Excise Officers wanted a more effective legislation to check and apprehend offences/offenders effectively. The British Rules in India approached 'The Crown' in Britain in this connection. The Government of India, accordingly constituted and appointed a Committee for conduct- ing a thorough investigation to find out the defects in the then prevailing systems and the scheme of the Excise Act, 1895 to meet with the demand of the changed circumstances in the public as well as to remove the defects coming in the way of the Excise Officers in giving effect to the objects of the Act. The Committee was desired to suggest a rational, effective and profitable change in the prevailing system which may earn maximum possible revenue to the government and help an effective check of the offences. The restrictions imposed by laws over the use and distribution the manufacture and sale etc. of the intoxicants (mainly the liquor) was questioned in England. The public felt it a restriction over the human rights to avail and enjoy the natural resources freely. On a challenge to such control the Filed, J. in Crowleg v. Ghristensen, (1980) 34 Law Ed 620 at page 623 replied the contentions raised in this behalf as under:- "There is in this position an assumption of a fact which does not exist, that when the liquors are taken in excess the injuries are confined to the party offending. The injury is true, falls upon him in his health which the habit undermines, in his morals, which it weakens, and in the self- abasement which it creates. But as it leads to neglect of business and waste of properly and general demoralization, it affects those who are immediately connected with and dependent upon him. By the general concurrence of opinion of every civilized and Christian community, there are few sources of crime and misery to society equal to the drum shop, where intoxicating liquors, in small quantities, to be drunk at the time are sold indiscriminately to all parties applying. The statistics of every State show a greater amount of crime and misery attributable to the use of ardent spirits obtained at these retail liquor saloons than to any other source. The sale of such liquor in this way has therefore, been at all times, by the courts of every State considered as the proper subject of legislative regulation. Not only may a license fee be exacted from the keeper of the saloon before a glass of his liquors can be thus disposed of, but restrictions may be imposed as to the class of person to whom they may be sold, and the hours or the day, and the days of the week on which the saloons may be opened. Their sale in that form may be absolutely prohibited is a question of public morality, and not of federal law. The police power of the State is fully competent to regulate the business to mitigate its evils or to suppress it entirely. There is no inherent right in a citizen to thus sell intoxicating liquor by retail, it is not a privilege of citizen of the State of the State or of a citizen of the United States. As it is a business attended with danger to the community, it may, as already said, be entirely prohibited, or be permitted under such conditions as will limit to the utmost its evils. The manner and extent of regulation rest in the discretion of the governing authority. The authority may vest in such officers as it may deem proper the power of passing upon application for permission to carry it on, and to issue licenses for that purpose." The necessity for legislation to give effect to the recommendations of the Indian Excise Cornn1ittee of 1905-06 was brought to public notice in connection with Bengal and United Provinces Excise Act of 1909 and 1910, and in explanation of similar legislation for the Prov- ince of the Punjab it will suffice to reproduce the following extracts from the Statement of ob- jects and Reasons appended to the Bill which became law as United Provinces Act, IV of 1910:- In 1905 an Excise Committee was appointed by the Government of India to investigate the various systems of excise administration obtaining in each province of British India, and to report how far they calculated to give the fullest practical effect to the general policy of the Government of India in excise matters as declared in resolution No. 5001 Exc; of the Finance Department, dated the 7th September, 1905. In connection with this investigation the Committee was instructed to consider the various defects in the Excise Act, 1895 (XII of 1896), which had been brought to notice rendered it desirable that the Act in question should be completely repealed and, if so, to indicate the main lines on which fresh legislation was required. The Committee after a careful scrutiny of the Act decided in favour of repeal. They pointed out that the Act was unsuited to modem conditions, and that it was an obstacle in the way of improved methods of excise administration. Among other defects, the following were specially brought to notice ;- (a) that the Act provides only for the distillery system in its crude form; (b) that it ignores the subject of the wholesale vend or liquor; (c) x x x x (d) that the procedure laid down does not provide sufficiently for the detection of offences and the arrest of offenders; (e) that the power of inspection is unnecessarily restricted; and (f) that the provisions for the making of statutory rules are imperfect. The Committee expressed the opinion that a fresh enactment of general application ought to be framed and that the new law should proceed on the lines followed in the Madras Abkari Act of 1886. That enactment is permissive in character, and while it requires that the manufacture, possession and sale of excisable articles shall be covered by license granted by due authority, in other respects it merely indicates the broad lines on which the Abkari System is to be conducted and the nature of the control which may be exercised, leaving points of detail to be determined by rules framed under the Act and having the force of law. As contrasted with the Madras Act, the Excise Act, 1896, is not enabling butt restrictive; and in common with all other Acts, drafted on the same rigid model, it is open to the objection that by providing only for specific systems, it whether checks or hinders the adoption of improved methods suggested by further experience. Every new development which appears has to be met be recourse to fresh legislation. The Government of India have accepted the conclusions of the Excise Committee as to the necessity for a new enactment and have approved of the lines on which, as suggested by the Committee, the new Act should be framed. They have, however, decided that instead of an Act of general application being passed, each province should legislate for itself. As in the case of United Provinces Bill the present Punjab draft has been modeled on the draft Bill prepared by the Excise Committee but consideration has also been paid to the modifications of that draft which have been introduced in the recent Bengal and United Provinces Legislation. The framers of the present Bill have also profited by the discussions which have taken place in connection with Central Provinces Excise Bill. The particular circumstances of the Excise Administration of the Punjab have been very carefully considered and were necessary a departure from the models referred to above has been made to meet them.