PURNA CHANDRA MANDAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner (Puma Chandra Mandal) has been convicted, along with certain others, not before me, under s. 6 of the Mayurbhanj Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1948, (XI of 1948), for having contravened the Export of Rice and Paddy Prohibition Order, 1942, which was ordered to remain in force, as if passed or made under it, in pursuance of Section 16(3) of the aforesaid Act.

(2.) THE question, posed in the revision, is whether, on the date (the 11th February, 1949) the alleged contravention of the order had occurred, there was any law in force penalising the same as an offence, the Mayurahanj Act XI of 1948 having beencontended to have been repealed. To arrive at a solution, a peep into the history of the integration and its reaction on the field of law is unavoidable.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY , as I have already said, one of the Central Acts, as applied to the state, The Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946 (XXIV of 1946), finds mention as Item No. 19 of the first column of the Schedule, referred to above. In its application, certain modifications as set forth in the second column of the Schedule were made. Of them, material for the purpose, is the modification ejected by repeal and re -enactment of Section 17, which is as follows: