MADAN LAL BATRA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 10th May, 1979, the Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi issued an order stayed "Delhi (Milk and Milk Products Control order, 1979" (for short the order) under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The order was promulgated for the purpose of maintaining and increasing the supplies of milk and for securing its equitable distribution in the Union Territory of Delhi. It prohibited manufacture, sale, service, supply or export of milk products and banned the use of milk for the manufacture of case - in, khoa, rubree, paneer or any kind of sweets in the preparation of which milk or any of its products, except ghee was an ingredient. The Order came into force on 15th May, 1979 and ceased to operate on 14th July, 1979. However, while the Order was still in force officials of the Food & Supplies Department, Delhi Administration, conducted a raid on the shop of the petitioner, who runs halwai shop in the name name style of Mohan Sweets, on 22nd May, 1979 and found that 5 kgs. of gulabjaman, a sweet made of Seema Brand milk powder, had been kept for sale in the shop. The petitioner was present there and was looking after his business. He told the officials of the Food & Supplies Department that gulabjaman had been manufactured with Seema powder which contained milk powder and he had purchased the same from M/s. Chander Bhan & Sons of Khari Baoli. The Food & Supplies officials seized the stock of gulabjaman and took three representative samples out of the same. One sample was sent to the Public Analyst, who reported on 5th July, 1079, that the same was preparation of a milk product. Hence, prosecution was launched against the petitioner for contravention of the Order which constituted an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act. However, it was subsequent to the expiration of the Order.

(2.) The petitioner moved an application, inter alia, contending that the Order having expired by effux of time and there being no saying clause to keep alive its operation, his prosecution after the expiry of the Order was bad in law. The learned Magistrate has rejected this contention vide impugned order order dated 2nd December, 1980. Hence, this revision petition.

(3.) The short question for consideration is whether the prosecution launched against the petitioner after the expiration of the Order wai valid and legal. The following passage appearing at page 409 in Craies on Statute Law" 7th Edition, enunciates the general principle :