MEWA LAL Vs. REX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These 19 applications in revision have arisen out of 19 different oases started against several applicants in these revisions, for alleged offences under the U. P. Gur Control Order, 1945, and the U. P. Oilseeds and Oilseeds1 Produot3 Control Order, 1945. In some of the oases the offence was alleged to have been constituted by a non-compliance with certain requirements mentioned in the licenses granted to the accused in those cases. In other cases the offence was alleged to have been constituted by a breach of some of the provisions of the Control Orders.

(2.) At the outset of the trial in each one of these cases two preliminary objections were taken on behalf of the accused persons. One of the two preliminary objections is common to all the 19 cases. The other preliminary objection arose only in those cases where the alleged offence was in respect of non-compliance with the requirements mentioned in the licenses granted under the Control Orders. The first preliminary objection was that, inasmuch as the Defence of India Act and the Defence of India Bales, under which the two aforesaid Control Orders were promulgated, bad expired by a lapse of time, the various accused persons could not be prosecuted for the aforesaid alleged offences. The second preliminary objection was that a breach of the conditions of the licenses hoe not been made an offence either under the 1 J. P. Gur Control Order, 1945, or under the 0. P. Oilseeds and Oilseeds' Products Control Order, 1945, and that therefore in respect of Such breaches no prosecution could be maintained.

(3.) be to these preliminary objections were overruled by the learned Magistrates before whom the prosecutions were proceeding. The applicants in these various revisions applied to the Sessions Judge of Allahabad to recommend to this Court that the proceedings started against the applicants be quashed, but he also declined to do so, being of the opinion that the contentions raised on behalf of the applicants were without any sub3tance. It may be pointed here that all these 19 cases were started at Allahabad, and therefore it was the same learned Sessions Judge to whom the various applicants went up in revision. Having failed to succeed before the learned Sessions Judge, the applicants have now applied in revision to this Court. The same two preliminary objections have been repeated in the memoranda of revisions and the relief prayed for in all these revision applications in substance is that the proceedings pending against the applicants be quashed and that an order for their discharge be passed. Inasmuch as the points arising in these revision applications are common, it is convenient to dispose them all by a single judgment.