BASHIR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have been convicted by the 1st Glass Magistrate of Kishanganj under Section 7, read with Section. 8, Essential Supplies (Temporary powers) Act, 1946, (Central Act XXIV [24] of 1946), and sentenced each to rigorous imprisonment for lour months. Also, the essential commodities, namely, paddy and rice, in respect of which the offence, of which they have been convicted is said to have been committed, have been forfeited under the provisions of the Act The conviction, the sentence and the order of the forfeiture have been upheld in appeal by the Additional sessions Judge of Purnea.

(2.) The offence is found to have been committed by the petitioners by attempting on the night of 17-11-1948 at Baisabari Ghat police station Thakurganj, to carry nee and paddy beyond the permitted limit to Nepal, in contravention of a notification (Notifn. NO. 538 P. C., dated 9-1-1948) issued by the Bihar Government.

(3.) It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the order of the Government of Bihar in question does not operate to prevent the transport of essential commodities from the Provincial a place outside India and, therefore, the direction of which the petitioners have been found guilty was not in contravention of the Government order. Paddy and rice are essential commodities within the provisions of Act XXIV [24]. Under Section 3 of the Act, the Central Government is empowered by notified order to provide for regulating or prohibiting the production, supply and distribution of essential commodities, and trade and commerce therein. Under Section 4 the Central Government is empowered to delegate its powers under Section 3, among others, to a Provincial Government; this delegation to be subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in the direction under Section 4. The delegation of powers is the present case was made under the Essential Supplies (Temporary powers) Ordinance, 1946, and under Section17 of Act XXXV [24] is to be treated as delegation made under the Act. The delegation was made subject to an important restriction, namely,