MADHO SINGH Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in these two cases have all been convicted under Rule 81(4), Defence of India Rules. Madho Singh and Lakhi Sahu, the petitioners in Case No. 939, have been convicted for having, on 15 April 1943, sold rice of standard medium quality at three seers to the rupee in contravention of an order fixing the maximum price for such rice at the rate of 3 seers 9 chhataks per rupee. They were convicted by a Magistrate with first class powers on 23 July 1943 and they were sentenced to three months rigorous imprisonment each. An appeal against that conviction was dismissed by the Sessions Judge of Saran on 31 August 1943.

(2.) Tulsi Kandu, the petitioner in Case No. 982, has been convicted for having, on 9 February 1943, attempted to export paddy from Shahabad District to Gazipur District in the United Provinces in contravention of an embargo placed by the Provincial Government on such export by their Notification No. 954 P.C.-34 P.C., dated 23 January 1943. He has been sentenced to three month's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50 or in default a further one month's rigorous imprisonment by an Honorary Magistrate holding first class powers by his judgment dated 7 July 1943. An appeal against that conviction was dismissed by the Sessions Judge of Shahabad on 4 September 1943.

(3.) The validity of the order fixing the maximum price for rice, with which we are concerned in Case No. 939, and the validity of the notification of the Provincial Government in Case No. 982 at the dates they were made has not been impugned nor has it been disputed that the order and the notification respectively were still in force on the respective dates of occurrence in these two eases; nor has it been denied that the facts alleged against the petitioners and found against them by the lower Courts would, at the dates of occurrence, have rendered the petitioners in the two cases respectively liable to conviction under Rule 81(4), Defence of India Rules. The main contention on behalf of the petitioners in both cases has been that owing to a change in the law between the date of occurrence and the date of conviction they have been illegally convicted under Rule 81(4), Defence of India Rules, and that their convictions should, therefore, be set aside.