TMI Blog1959 (9) TMI 48X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondents filed a petition before the said Munsif-Magistrate praying for their discharge on the ground that the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946 (XXIV of 1946), hereinafter called the 1946 Act, whereunder the said Order was made, had been repealed, and, therefore, the Order ceased to have any legal force thereafter, and consequently they could not be prosecuted under the expired Order. The Munsif-Magistrate rejected that petition. The Additional Sessions Judge, Patna, after perusing the records transmitted the same to the High Court under s. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with his opinion that the order of the Munsif-Magistrate was wrong and, therefore, it might be set aside with the direction to the Munsif-Magistrate to discharge the accused. The respondents also filed a revision to the High Court against the order of the Munsif- Magistrate. The reference as well as the revision were heard together by Imam, J., of the High Court at Patna, and the learned Judge accepting the reference and the revision set aside the order of the Munsif-Magistrate and directed the accused to be discharged. Hence the appeal. The learned Counsel appearing for the state contend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de, licence or permit granted or direction issued under any such order and in force immediately before such commencement shall continue in force unless and until it is superseded by any appointment made, licence or permit granted or direction issued under this Ordinance. This Ordinance was published in the Gazette of India on January 21, 1955, and came into force on January 26, 1955. The Essential Commodities Act, 1955. S. 3 (1): If the Central Government is of opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do for maintaining or increasing supplies of any essential commodity or for securing their equitable distribution and availability at fair prices, it may, by order provide for regulating or prohibiting the production, supply and distribution thereof and trade and commerce therein. S. 7 (1): If any person contravenes any order made under section 3- (a) he shall be punishable- (i) in the case of an order made with reference to clause (h) or clause (i) of sub-section (2) of that section, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year and shall also be liable to fine, and (ii) in the case of any other order, with imprisonment for a term which may extend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the 1946 Act. On April 1, 1955, the Act was passed practically reenacting the same provisions of the Ordinance, and thereunder the same power exercised by the Central Government under s. 3 of the 1946 Act and s. 3 of the Ordinance was preserved. The Act also provided for repeals and savings. The question, therefore, is whether, on the date of commission of the offence, the Order whereunder the prosecution was launched was subsisting or whether it ceased to exist. It is common case that an Order made under an Act ceases to have any legal force after the expiry of the term for which the Act is made. But it is contended that the Order survived the expiry of the 1946 Act by reason of the saving clauses provided by the Ordinance and the Act. Ordinarily, the Order should have expired on January 26, 1955. Unless it was saved by s. 16 of the Ordinance the saving clause of the Act could not operate on it. We shall, therefore, consider the question from two aspects: (i) whether s. 16 of the Ordinance saved the operation of the Order; and (ii) if it saved it, whether s. 16(2) of the Act gave it a further lease of life. Section 16 of the Ordinance is in two parts. Under the first part,, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... continue in force but for the continuance of the Order itself: they depend upon the continuation of the Order. It is said that this interpretation imputes tautology to the legislature, and, therefore, should not be accepted. A scrutiny of the section shows that the second part is not really redundant, as at the first blush it appears to be. Under s. 16 of the Ordinance, the Order made under the Act of 1946 continues to be in force till another Order is made under the Ordinance. It covers two periods: (i) the period up to the date of the commencement of the Ordinance; and (ii) the period thereafter. The first part gives life to that Order, and, therefore, the acts authorised under that Order can be done subsequent to the coming into force of the Ordinance. But a question may be raised whether the past acts done under that Order are saved by the continuance of the Order, or whether the acts already done are covered by the words that the Order shall continue in force . The second part appears to have been enacted for the purpose of avoiding this difficulty or, at any rate, to dispel the ambiguity. Under the section both the Order and the acts previously done under the Order are save ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the second part of it survived the expiry of the Ordinance and continued in force under the Act. For the above reasons, we hold that the prosecution was validly launched against the accused under s. 3 of the Order. Even so, the learned Counsel for the respondents contends that it is not a fit case for this Court to interfere under Art. 136 of the Constitution. The offence was alleged to have been committed on August 30, 1955, i.e., more than four years ago. The varying views expressed by the Courts indicate that there was a plausible justification for reasonable belief on the part of the accused that the Order did not survive the expiry of the life of the 1946 Act. The order of the High Court dismissing the application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court shows that it was filed in contravention of the provisions of r. 28 of the Patna High Court Rules. Under the said Rules the application should have been filed immediately after the judgment was delivered. In the affidavit filed in support of that application the only reason given for not doing so was that the appellant did not give the necessary instructions. The learned Judge of the High Court rightly did not accept th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
