DAS GUPTA, J. - (1.) THESE two applications are against two orders of conviction and sentence under Section 7 of Act XXIV [24] of 1946, read with Section 8 of the same Act, in two different cases. In both the cases the petitioners were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two and a half months, and the paddy was forfeited.
(2.) THEY were heard together, as both of them raise the same question of law -the question whether on the alleged date of contravention of orders for which the petitioners have been convicted, 23rd September 1948 -Act XXIV [24] of 1946 was in force. Mr. Mukherjee who has argued the cases for all the petitioners has contended that Act XXIV [24] of 1946 ceased to be in force after 31st March 1948. If this contention be correct, it must be held that the conviction of the petitioners for acts committed on 23rd September 1948, would be unsustainable.
(3.) ADMITTEDLY , Act XXIV [24] of 1946 is, or was a temporary Act. As the preamble states, it was enacted to provide for the continuance of certain powers during a limited period. It was therefore necessary to define in the Act itself the period during which it would be in operation. This has been done in sub sections (3) of Section 1, by saying when the Act will cease to operate. The sub -section is in these words : "It shall cease to have effect on the expiration of the period mentioned in Section 4, India (Central Government and Legislature) Act, 1946, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before the expiration thereof..." To find out therefore whether this Act is in operation in any case, we have to ascertain first the date of expiration of the period mentioned in Section 4, India (Central Government and Legislature) Act, 1946. If the act or omission complained of was done after that date, Act XXIV [24] of 1946 has no operation, if the act or omission was done before that date, Act XXIV [24] of 1946 has operation.;