Mushtaq Ahmad, J. - (1.) The questions referred to the Full Bench are set out in the referring order in these terms: (1) Does the mere possession of cloth which was not to be possessed after 31st December 1944, in view of Clause 14, Sub-clause (1) (a), Cotton Cloth and Yarn (Control) Order 1943, amount to so contravening the provisions of that Order as to be punishable under B, 81 (4), Defence of India Rules or would it amount to such contravention if such poaeession be without lawful authority or lawful exouse? (2) Whether the general consideration that the authorities did not, either in this Control Order or in directions issued thereunder, provide the mode in which the dealers were to act in the event of such cloth remaining with them undisposed of, would itself amount to a 'lawful excuse.' (3) Whether the existence of lawful excuse depends on the dealers taking some active step prior to 31st December 1944, for getting rid of the cloth before or after 31st December 1944.
(2.) The full facta of the cases in which the questions mentioned above have arisen are given in the referring order. All that is necessary for us to do is to indicate briefly, in outline, the salient features which have to be be rne in mind in appreciating the points raised in these cases. All these cases, 25 in number, have been consolidated. In all of them admittedly retail dealers were found in possession of cloth after 81st December 1944, In consequence, all these dealers have been prosecuted for an offence under E, 81 (4), Defence of India Rules, for contravening the provisions of Clause 14, Cotton Cloth and Yarn (Control) Order, 1943. In none of these oases has any dealer denied the recovery of cloth from his possession. Their defence, in the main, has been that they were, for one reason or another, quite unable to dispose of the cloth in their possession by the specified date, i. e., 3lst December 1944. In some oE these cases, the plea taken in defence, in terms, was that the respondents had tried their best to sell the cloth in their posses
(3.) We have listened to prolonged arguments-, on the one hand, from the learned Government Advocate, who appears in support of the Government appeals, and, on the other, from different counsel who appear for different respondents. In the course of their arguments, they have invited our attention to a large number of rulings. They have also brought to our notice the relevant provisions of the Control Order as well as of the Defence of India Rules relevant thereto, in support of their contentions. We shall revert to these rulings after considering the relevant provisions of the Control Order as well as of the Defence of India Rules.;