Mehta, J. -
(1.)THESE criminal appeals are filed by the Government Advocate on behalf of the Government against the order of acquittal passed by the District Magistrate on 9th September in various criminal cases e.g. Criminal Case No. 1844 of 1947, Criminal Case No. 1845 of 1947, criminal Case No. 1846 of 1947 and criminal case No. 10233 of 1947.
(2.)I will first of all take up Criminal Appeals Nos. 19 and 24, They arise from, the facts of criminal case No. 1846 and 10233 of 1947. Both these cases were jointly tried by the District Magistrate, vide order in proceedings dated 3rd February 1948. Both these cases were decided on 9th September 1948. In criminal Case No. 1810 of 1947, information having been received that the firm styled as Messrs. Prakashcbandra Rameshchandra was in possession of time -barred; cloth in contravention of Section 14, Clause U), Indore Cotton Cloth and Yarn Control Order 1945, & search was made on premises occupied by the firm by Mr. Adsule, Textile Inspector under the orders of Textile Commissioner. Time barred cloth as per schedule attached was seized from the firm of Prakashchadra Rameshchandra Criminal case No. 1846 of 1947. was filed by the Deputy Textile Commissioner against Gendalal, Gulabchand and Dhannalal. Then criminal Case No. 10,233 of 1947 was launched on a complaint by the Deputy Textile Commissioner on 18th November 1947 regarding the seizure of time -barred cloth and all the parters of the firm of Prakashchandra Rameshchandra were prosecuted e.g. (1) Gambhirmal, (2) Mrs. Manakbai, (3) Mrs. Sunderbai, (4) Mr. Himatbumar, (5) Bimal -chand, (6) Prakashchandra, (7) Kailaschandra, (8) Rameshchandra and (9) Dhannalal.
Sanction for the prosecution was given by the Textile Commissioner, Mr. Narayan Swami. Criminal cases Nos. 1846 of 1947 and 10233 of 1947 were jointly tried, vide order in proceedings dated 3 -2 -1948, passed by the District Magistrate, Mr. Munshi. The District Magistrate convicted only the accused Gambhirmal for contravening the provisions of Clause. 14, Indore Cotton Cloth and Yarn Control Order read with Section 8, Indore Essential Supplies Order and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 2000 or in default rigorous imprisonment for 4 months. The remaining accused were acquitted. Criminal Appeals Nos. 19 and 24 have been preferred by the Government against the order of acquittal. Appeal No. 19 of 1949 was filed originally, on 8th March 1949 against the order of acquittal in favour of Gendalal, Gulabchand and Dhannalal. Subsequently on 16th March a communication was received from the Law Department directing appeal only against Gendalal and Gulabchand and the appeal against the acquittal of Dhannalal was withdrawn Subsequently on 21st March another communication was received; from the Government sanctioning appeal against the acquittal of Gendalal Gulab chand and Dhannalal. Hence Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 1949 is filled. Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 1919 which is subsequently filed against acquittal of Dhannalal on 21st March 1949 is obviously time -barred and we have passed order that Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 1949 shall be struck off the register of appeals and it shall be treated as an application in Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 1949. The District Magistrate came to the conclusion that in consequence of the search made at the shop of Prakashchandra Rameahchandra time -barred cloth as shown in Panchanama p/4 was seized. It is admitted that the following items of time -barred cloth were seized viz. Items Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 15, '20, 21, 22, 24, 20, '28, 30, 31 and 114. The lower Court without deciding the question as to who were the partners of the firm of Prakashchandra Rameshchandra acquitted Gendalal & Guladchandra on the ground that assuming that oven if they are partners they are not liable as they had no blameworthy mind and held that as mens rea was not proved against them they were not guilty for the contravention of Clause 14(1), Cotton Cloth and Yarn Control Order and acquitted them. As the license of the above firm was issued in the name of Gambhirmal and the latter admitted that time -barred cloth was recovered and seized from the shop, he was convicted and fined Rs. 2000. The excuse of Gambhirmal that time -barred cloth was kept aside for the bona fide purpose of marriage in the family was found by the lower Court not lawful.
(3.)BEFORE I take up the various points of contentions raised in this appeal, it would be necessary to discuss the various notifications issued by the Textile Commissioner, Indore under the provisions of Indore Cotton Cloth and Yam Control Order of'1.045 and various clauses of the Cotton Cloth and Yarn Control Order.