DAN MALL SHARMA Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in these two applications have been convicted under Sub-rule (4) of Rule 81 of the Rules (Defence of India Rules) made under the Defence of India Act, 1939, for contravention of Clause (10) of the Mica Control Order, 1940, which is an order made under Sub-rule (2) of the said Rule 81, and have been sentenced by the appellate Court to pay fines of Rs. 50 each.

(2.) Clause do of the Mica Control Order requires the keeping of regular accounts, and in each case the finding is that the petitioner had failed to keep regular accounts during certain periods prior to the end of the year 1941.

(3.) In these cases the petitioners rely upon a defect in the wording of Rule 81(4) as it originally stood. Rule 81 is merely an enabling rule. It merely provides that Government may in certain circumstances by order provide for certain things. There is nothing in the rule itself which has to be obeyed by any one. Manifestly, therefore, the penalty clause, which is Sub-rule (4) ought to have made persons punishable for contravention of any order made under the rule. As it stood, however, at the time when the petitioners contravened the Mica Control Order, the penalty clause, Rule 81(4), ran as follows: If any person contravenes any of the provisions of this rule, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both.