DEVAGUPTAPU SESHAGIRI RAO Vs. SALT FACTORY OFFICER GURUZANWILLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) P.W.1, the Deputy Superintendent of Salt, Guruzanapalti, filed the complaint before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate on the allegation that the petitioner was manufacturing salt without obtaining licence which is an offence under section 9 of the Central Excise and Salt Act (1 of 1944) read with section 6 of the same Act and rule 102 of the Notification framed thereunder. He was found guilty by the trial Court under the said provision and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six weeks. This conviction and sentence was confirmed by the lower appellate Court. Therefore, the petitioner has come up before this Court.

(2.) It appears that the petitioner was granted a licence to manufacture salt in the GuruzanapalH Salt Factory under the Madras Salt Act of 1889 and the land on which the salt was manufactured was within the boundaries of the Guruzanapalli Salt Factory. It appears that this salt factory was created under the Madras Salt Act of 1889 by Notification in 1928. But it ceased to exist by the Repealing and Amending Act (II of 1948). Since this petitioner has been manufacturing salt without obtaining licence, the complaint was laid against him. The Madras Salt Act of 1889 was repealed by the Central Excises and Salt Act (1 of 1944) and section 39 was inserted which reads as follows :-

(3.) In the light of this saving clause all the other acts done under the Act were kept alive and the Gurazanapalli Salt Factory continued to function. The point that has to be determined is whether the Notification and other acts which were kept alive by section 39 of the Central Excises and Salt Act (1 of 1944) continued to be in force till the prosecution was launched.