STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. KANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference made by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur District, Jaipur, with a recommendation that charges framed against Kana, Jhuntha, Deva, Lachha and Nola sons of Ramu Jat, under section 3 read with S. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for contravention of the provisions of the Rajasthan Guest Control Order(hereinafter referred to as the order), which was published in the Rajasthan Raj Patra Extraordinary Part 4 (c), vide No. F. 17 (358 II) F/S 65, dated 12th Sept., 1965, may be quashed.

(2.) The reference arises under the following circumstances:- On 20th May, 1969, Padma son of Toda Ram Jat resident of Ranjitpura and Ramnath son of Dhuda Ram Naik resident of Rainwal presented an application in the Gram Panchayat, Rainwal, that Ramu son of Kalu Jat resident of Odhaniyawali Dhani had expired on 10th May, 1969, and that in connection with his funeral a feast of about 3000 persons would be given by his sons on 21st May, 1969. Upon receipt of this application, the Acting Sarpanch informed the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sambhar Lake, about anticipatory breach of the Order on telephone. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate advised the acting Sarpanch to move the Station House Officer, Rainwal. The Acting Sarpanch, thereupon, sent a report to the police station, Rainwal. On the basis of the report, the Station House Officer, Rainwal, registered a criminal case under S. 3 read with S. 7 of the Act against the sons of the deceased, namely, Lachha, Deva, Jhuntha, Kana and Nola and made the usual investigation. During the course of investigation, it was found that the accused persons served or provided for consumption prohibited food stuff to more than 100 persons in connection with the funeral-feast of their deceased father. On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the aforesaid sons of the deceased under S. 3/7 of the Act in the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sambhar Lake. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate framed necessary charges against the accused persons and proceeded to try them for contravention of the provisions of the Order. After coming into force of the Criminal procedure Code, 1973, this case was transferred to the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Jaipur District, Jaipur, for trial. In the course of trial before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, an application was presented on behalf of the accused persons that in view of an authority of this Court Ram Chandra Vs. State of Rajasthan, 1972 R.L.W. 272 , the accused persons cannot be prosecuted under the provisions of the Order as it was a temporary enactment and was rescinded by Food Supplies Department Notification No, S. 0.29 dated 9th Sept., 1971, and as no savings clause had been inserted in the notification to show that even after its rescission it would remain alive for pending cases. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur District, Jaipur, relying upon the referred-to above authority of this Court, was of the view that the Order was a temporary enactment and after the expiry thereof, the proceedings already taken against the accused persons in this case automatically terminated in the absence of a savings clause to the contrary. He has, therefore, made this reference to this Court for quashing the charges framed against the accused persons.

(3.) Notice of this reference was given to the accused persons and to the Public Prosecutor. Mr. A.K Bhandari appeared on behalf of the accused persons and supported the reference. Dr. S. S Bhandawat put in his appearance on behalf of the State and vehemently contended before me that the Order was not a temporary enactment and that it did not expire by efflux of time or upon happening of a contingency, but it was rescinded or repealed with immediate effect by the Food Supplies Department Notification No. S. O. 29 dated 9th Sept., 1971. According to him, the repeal of the Order attracted the operation of S. 6 of the Rajasthan General Clauses Act, which clearly provides that unless there is an intention to the contrary, the repeal of an Act or Regulation shall not affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed or affect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability etc. as aforesaid and that such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued, or enforced as if the repealing law had not been passed.