STATE GOVT MADHYA PRADESH Vs. SETH PARASMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the State Govt. under Section 467, Criminal P. C.

(2.) THE respondent Seth Parasmal son of Motilal was charged with the contravention of Clause 2 of the Provincial Govt. 's Order regulating export of ghee No. 4860-VII-F dated 18. 5. 1943, punishable under Section 7, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, for exporting 23 tins of ghee to Sambalpur.

(3.) THE respondent was convicted by the trial Court and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100. The conviction was set aside by the Additional Ses. J. Balaghat, on two grounds. The learned Additional Ses. J. held that prosecution failed to prove that any mode of publication of the Order was prescribed as required by Section 119 of the Defence of India Rules, or that the Order was published in : that manner. The learned Judge placed reliance on two decisions of the Court reporter in Shakoor v. Emperor I. L. R (1944) Nag. 150 and Babulal Rajjulal v. Emperor I. L. R (1915) Nag. 762. The first decision was concerned with an order passed by a District Magistrate under Section 81 of the Defence of India Rules. The second case was concerned with the Govt. of India's Foodgrains Control Order, 1942, read with an order of the Provincial Govt. published in the local gazette. The order of the Provincial Govt. was held to be valid because the Order of the Central Govt. provided that the Provincial Govt. may from time to time by notification in the official gazette declare a commodity specified in the first schedule of the foodgrains Control Order of the Govt. of India to be a foodgrain within the meaning of the Order. The notification in the local gazette of masoor as a foodgrain was held to be a sufficient compliance with the mode of publication prescribed by the Control Govt. There are, how ever, observations in that decision to the effect that because an order is published in a Govt. gazette, it cannot be presumed that the authority in question thought that that was the host mode of publication. It was, further, observed that the Crown must prove that the authority making the order not only prescribed a particular mode of publication but that the publication was strictly in accord with what was prescribed.