- (1.) I have seen the order proposed to be made by, my learned brother.
(2.) IT was contended before us that the Ordinance lapsed before the prosecution. This contention was advanced on behalf of Sridhar Acharya before the withdrawal of the prosecution on 29-9-1948 and was overruled by the trial Court. He had brought up the matter to this Court and our brother Harish Chandra rejected the contention, see -- 'sridhar Achari v. Emperor', AIR 1948 all 182 (A ). He held that the Ordinance was not of a limited validity and remained valid and in force after 1-4-1946 and that there was no legal bar to a prosecution started under Section 7 of the Ordinance in March 1947. The present prosecution is a different prosecution and the decision of our brother Harish Chandra is not binding on the applicant. But we are in full agreement with the decision. The Ordinance, having been promulgated between 27-6-1940 and 1-4-1946, was not subject to the limitation of six months' duration contained in Section 72 of Sch. IX of the Government of India Act, 1935. It was to remain in force so long as it was not repealed.
(3.) THE second contention that the sanction was not proved no longer remains valid. We examined sri O. P, Gupta, Assistant Secretary to Government of India, Finanee Department. He proved that under a resolution dated 28-7-1939 of the Ministry of Home Department he was authorised to sign letters and orders issued on behalf of the Government of India, that the Government of india had received a precis of the case from the State Government and after considering the facts of the case had sanctioned prosecution of the applicant and others for the offence of Section 7 of the Ordinance and that the sanction sent to the State Government on 16-4-1947 was signed by him. He also stated that the Deputy Secretary of the Finance Department and an Officer of the department of Law were consulted before the sanction was granted.;