A N G SUNDARAJALU CHETTY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE point arising in this revision petition has already been the subject of a pronouncement by me in the decision reported in The Public Prosecutor v. Eamalingeswara. swami, 1948 M. W. N. 684 : A. I. R. (36) 1949 Mad. 271; but Mr. E. Gopalaawami Aiyangar for the petitioner in his interesting and able argument has sought to question the correctness of that decision and out of deference to his learned arguments I shall state briefly the reasons why I adhere to the views already propounded by me in the case mentioned above.

(2.) THE petitioner was convicted by the Additional First Class Magistrate of Kumbakonam of an offence Under Section 7 (2), War Risk (Goods) Insurance Ordinance IX [9] of 1940 and sentenced to a fine of Es. 500. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge of West Tanjore con-firmed the conviction and sentence and this revision petition is a further attempt by the petitioner to canvass the correctness of his conviction and sentence. There is no dispute regarding the circumstances which led to the prosecution and as regards the fact, that the petitioner did not take out an insurance policy as contemplated by Section 7 (1) of the Ordinance. Various points were raised in the lower appellate Court of which, in addition to the question regarding the sustainability of the prosecution, the only other point that was argued was about the necessity of taking out an insurance policy for the entire good belonging to the petitioner stored in various districts throughout India.

(3.) THE prosecution in this case was initiated on 21st November 1946 as a result of a sanction obtained on 7th November 1946. Ordinance IX [9] of 1940 continued to be in force till the duration of the war and six months thereafter, i. e. , till 30th September 1946, but portions of the same had been repealed by Ordinance xxxiv [84] of 1945 dated 14th September 1945. This subsequent Ordinance repealed with effect, at and after midnight between 30th September and 1st October 1945, Sections 5, 5a, 7, 8 and 15, War Bisk (Goods) Insurance Ordinance of 1940. Such being the case, from the date of the promulgation of the later Ordinance, Section 7 of the earlier Ordinance ceased to have any operation and was wholly effaced with the result that from that date the prohibition against carrying on any business in British India as a seller of goods which were insurable under the Ordinance and without taking out an insurance policyi was thereby revoked; but the offence in this case was committed prior to that date and if the prosecution had been started prior to 1st October 1945, there could have been no question whatever about the maintainability of it.