STATE OF BIHAR Vs. MAGNI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondents before us, namely, Magni Lal and S. K. Pramanik, had been prosecuted for an offence under Section 7, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act (24 of 1946). THEy were, however, acquitted by Mr. J. N. Singh, Magistrate First Class, Ranchi on grounds of law.

(2.) THE prosecution case was that, on 7-5-1952, these two respondents earned 62 maunds and odd of 'maida' and 19 maunds and 'odd' of 'Suji' (wheat products) into Ranchi district from outside the district on a truck, which was driven by one Neeka Singh. THEse two respondents, along with, the driver,' were charged under Section 7 of the Act aforesaid for contravention of Government Notification No. Proc. 93/51-P.C.-3267G, dated 11-12-1951, as amended by Notification No. Proc. 54/52-P.C. 13020 dated 5-5-1952, issued under Clause 11 of the Bihar Foodgrains Control Order 1950.

(3.) UNDER Section 3, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, the Central Government was authorised to provide, by notified order, for regulating or prohibiting the production, supply and distribution of essential commodities or for securing their equitable distribution and avaliability at fair prices. UNDER Section 4 of that Act, the powers of the Central Government could be delegated to any officer or authority subordinate to the Central Government or to such Provincial Government or such officer or authority subordinate to the, Provincial Government as may be specified in the direction; and Section 7 of the Act makes penal any breach of the orders passed by the Central Government or by the Provincial Government or by the authority or officer of the Provincial Government. The State of Bihar passed the Bihar Foodgrains Control Order, 1950, under the provisions of the Act, and under Clause 11 of the Bihar Foodgrains Control Order, 1950, the aforesaid notification was issued. The said notification provided that "no person shall export, carry or cause to be exported or carried.,.. (ii) any quantity of wheat, wheat-products (namely, atta, maida & suji but excluding self raising flour & semolina imported from overseas), Maize, barley, jowar and milo.. (b) by motor trucks or any other kind of motor vehicles--from any place within a district to any other place outside that district;.. except with the written permission of the Chief Controller of Prices and Supplies Bihar or the Deputy Commissioner or the Additional Deputy Commis-sioner or the District Magistrate or the District Supply Officer of the exporting areas concerned. ." This notification was substituted by another noti fication on 18-6-1952, which did not continue the ban on the movement of wheat or wheat-products, in other words the ban was lifted. The point taken before the learned Magistrate was that, as on the date when the final order in the proceedings was to be passed, namely, on 27-11-1952, there was no- ban on the movement of wheat or wheat-products, there ought to be no conviction and it was sub mitted that in regard to breach of penal provi sions of temporary enactments, the entire pro ceeding, including the order of conviction should be terminated during the time the temporary Act was in force. Two authorities of this Court in -- 'Rampal Singh v. Emperor,' AIR 194S Pat 229 (B), and the other of Allahabad High Court in -- 'Bansgopal v. Emperor', AIR, 1933 All 669 (FB) (C), were relied upon and the Court below upon the authority of those two cases acquitted the respondents. The facts of these two cases were, however, entirely different. In the Patna case, the conviction had been recorded under the Defence of India Act and the Rules made thereunder. The point taken was that as the Act and the Rules thereunder had ceased to exist, the conviction though recorded before the expiry of the Act and the Orders made thereunder, was illegal as the Act and the orders had expired. The contention was negatived. It will thus be seen that the facts of that case were entirely different and the decision in that case can afford no guidance.