PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. PERUMAL NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FIRST Batch:-- These cases relate to offences under the Madras Paddy and Rice (Movement Control) Order, 1965. The only point raised in these cases is that the madras Paddy and Rice (Movement Control) Order, 1965 is not valid on the ground that the concurrence of the Central Government was not Obtained within 'thirty days after Sub-rule (3-A) of Rule 125 of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 came into force. Sub-rule (3-A) of Rule 125 of the Defence of India Rules came into force on 20-5-1965, The Madras Paddy and Rice (Movement Control) Order, 1965 was passed in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-rule (2) of Rule 125 of the defence of India Rules, 1962 read with Sub-rule (3) and Clause (b) of Sub-rule (9)of that rule, by the Governor of Madras, which came into force on 1-1-1965. At the time when the Madras Paddy and Rice (Movement Control) Order 1965 was passed, Sub-rule (3-A) to Rule 125 of the Defence of India Rules was not in force. Therefore, it may be necessary to examine the scope of Sub-rule (3-A) of Rule 125, which runs thus:

(2.) THE question that arises in respect of these" cases where the prosecution was launched in respect of certain things done or omitted to be done after 20-6-1965 is whether the confirmation as required under Sub-rule (3-A) was obtained by the state Government from the Central Government. The learned Public Prosecutor admits that there is no notification published in the Gazette of India in respect of confirmation of this order. But, however, he drew my attention to a letter purported to have been sent by the Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Government of India, under the signature of the Under Secretary, dated 11-6-1965, addressed to the Secretary to the Department of Food and Agriculture, Government of madras, stating that with reference to their letter dated 31st May 1965, he was directed to state that the Government have confirmed the following orders which includes (1) The Madras Paddy and Rice (Movement Control) Order, 1965; (2) The madras Paddy and Rice (Declaration and Requisitioning of Stocks) Order 1964, and (3) The Madras Paddy and Rice Dealers (Licensing and Regulation) Order 1965.

(3.) IT is contended for by the learned counsel, appearing for the accused in all these cases, that the letter sent by the Under Secretary, Ministry of Food and agriculture to the Secretary to Government, Department of Food and Agriculture, government of Madras, stating that the Government of India had confirmed the order in question is not sufficient compliance under Sub-rule (3-A) of rule 125. It is further contended that such confirmation must not only be made by the Central government but also it must be made by a notification published in the Official gazette of the Government of India. There is force in their contention. A mere letter passed between the two Governments would not be sufficient to validate the order unless the confirmation, which is the condition precedent, to validate the order Is officially notified, so that the citizens who are affected by such order will know whether the order had come into force for them to obey. In the absence of such notification in the Official Gazette and much less in the absence of evidence that such confirmation was made by the Central Government, excepting the letter that has been produced before me, I am Of the view that Sub-rule (3-A) was not complied with and eventually, I hold that this order had expired on the 20th june ,1965 for the reason that no valid con-firmation was obtained within a month in after Sub-rule (3-A) came into force.