HIRALAL KEZRIWAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference made by the learned Judge recommending that the order of the learned Magistrate dated 15-1-1957, be set aside and the proceeding be quashed and the petitioners be discharged.

(2.) The case of the prosecution was that the accused in the case had offended the provisions of Section 3 of the Cotton Textiles (Control of Movement) Order 1948 which had been passed under Section 3 of the Essential Supplies (Temperary Powers) Act 1946 (Act XXIV of 1946) and that by virtue of the contravention of the said Section 3 of the Cotton Textiles (Control of Movement) Order, 1948, the accused had committed an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (Act X of 1955).

(3.) The point for consideration is whether the provisions of Section 3 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946 as well as Section 3 of the Cotton Textiles (Control of Movement) Order 1948 have the force of law in view of the provisions of Section 16 (2) of Act X of 1955 which was repealed by Clause (1) the Essential Commodities Ordinance, 1955 (I of 1955) and any other law in force in any State immediately before the commencement of this Act in so far as such law controls or authorises the control of the production, supply and distribution of, and trade and commerce in, any essential commodity. If, appears from a decision of this court in Rakshya Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1957 Pat 66 (A), that an ordinance known as the Essential Commodities Ordinance 1955, came into existence on 21-1-1955 and thereafter a new Act came into force, namely, Act 10 of 1955, which was the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, on 1-4-1955. It was held in that case that on 25-6-1955, on which date the occurrence in that case was said to have taken place, the Essential Commodities Ordinance, 1955, was not in existence at all and thus there could be no prosecution under S. 8 of the said Ordinance, though this was a technical defect inasmuch as similar provisions were to be found in Act 10 of 1955. It appears from what I have_ stated above that the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946 (Act XXIV of 1946) had expired on 26-1-1955, and, therefore, the Order thereunder, namely, the Order known as the Cotton. Textiles (Control of Movement) Order must also be deemed to have expired. But my attention has been drawn to the saving clause, namely, Section 16 of the Ordinance known as the Essential Commodities Ordinance, 1955 (Ordinance No. 1 of 1955) which provided as follows: