DEBU DUTT KHETAWAT AND OTHERS Vs. STATE AND OTHERS
LAWS(CAL)-2000-4-68
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on April 19,2000

Debu Dutt Khetawat And Others Appellant
VERSUS
STATE AND OTHERS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) In this case the petitioners, who are the accused in E.C.G.R. Case No. 1 of 2000, have preferred an application for quashing of the proceeding under section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with West Bengal Pulses, Edible Oil Seeds and Edible Oil (Dealers Licensing) Order, 1978. The petitioner No. 1 is admittedly a dealer carrying on business in pulses under the name and style of Amit Enterprise. The petitioner No. 2 has claimed to be the owner of the truck bearing registration No. WB-25-4507. The petitioner No. 2 is common carrier of goods on a hire charges of the truck of which he is the owner. The petitioner No. 1 had obtained licence and has been carrying on business under the provisions of West Bengal Pulses, Edible Oil Seeds and Edible Oil (Dealers Licensing) Order, 1978. But, however, the said order stood repealed after promulgation of West Bengal Pulses, Edible Oil Seeds and Edible Oils (Storage Control and Dealers Licensing) Order, 1997 which came into effect from 11th August, 1999.
(2.) According to the petitioners that after the old Control Order of 1978 having been repealed, the prosecution against them could not have been lodged for the violation of the clauses of the said Control Order. Instead of filing prosecution under the old order if the prosecution so pleased, they could have filed a case under the provisions of the new Control Order which came into effect from 11th August, 1999. On perusal of the F.I.R. it appears that the prosecution started a case on the basis of the violation of the Clauses of the 1978 Order which has been admittedly repealed.
(3.) Mr. Moitra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has invited my attention that notwithstanding such repeal the provision of the earlier Control Order can be invoked for lodging a prosecution against the petitioners on the basis of section 6 of the Bengal General Clauses Act. To appreciate the said contention I think it appropriate to quote the said section here. "6. Effect of repeal - Where this Act, or any (Central Act) or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, repeals any enactment hitherto made or hereafter to be made, then, unless a different intention, appears, the repeal shall not :- (a) revive anything not in force or existing at the time at which the repeal takes effect; or (b) affect the previous operation of any enactment repealed or anything duly done or suffered thereunder; or (c) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued, or incurred under any enactment so repealed; or (d) affect any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of any offence committed against any enactment so repealed; or (e) affect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in resepct of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid. and any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, contained or enforced, and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed as if the repealing Act or Regulation has not been passed.";


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.