HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)This is an appeal by Government against the order of acquittal made by Mr. T. S. Vyas and dated June 20 1945. The charge with which the accused was brought before the learned Magistrate is in. these terms:
That you being the manager in the firm of Chunilal Mulchand & Co., having its shop at Waterloo Mansion, Mayo Road, Bombay, were on January 23, 1945, found to have in possession of 3,343 1/2 yards of cloth bearing November 43 Tex-mark and 402 yards of cloth bearing T. C. B. June 1944-Mark Exhibits A and A-l respectively and thus contravened cls. 14(J) (6) and 15-A of the Cotton Cloth and Yarn(Control) Order, 1948, which contravention is punishable under i. 81(4) of the Defence of India Rules and within the cognizance of this Court.
(2.)The learned Government Pleader has stated at the outset that the point involved is a technical one and that it is with regard to whether a sufficient sanction has been given within the true meaning of Clause 23 of the Order. Clause 23, so far as is material in this ease, reads:
No prosecution for the contravention of any of provisions of this Order shall be instituted without the previous sanction of the Provincial Government.
(3.)The clause in my view is not very happily worded as it does not specify the precise sanction which has to be given, but used in that context the words the previous sanction must relate to a prosecution for a contravention, and in my opinion it is incumbent on Government in each case to show that such a sanction had been given. It must be borne in mind that clauses of this character are for the public benefit.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.