CHIRONJILAL S/O. DINARAM Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant, Chironjilal of Lormi, Mungeli Tahsil, Bilaspur district, was convicted and sentenced to undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment under Rule 81(4) of the Defence of India Kules by the First Class Magistrate, Bilaspur, and his appeal was dismissed by the Extra Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur. He has now come up in revision to this Court.

(2.) THE prosecution case against him was, briefly stated, to the effect that he, a licensed sugar dealer, had, on 10-2-1946, at Lormi sold 6 maunds 15 j seers of sugar to Putu (P.W. l) and Bacholi (P.W. 2) at the rate of Re 1/- per seer in contravention of the price-control order dated 28-1-1946 of the District Magistrate, Bilaspur, by which the maximum retail price of sugar was fixed at Rs.-/8/3 per seer. Putu is Bacholi's uncle and, according to them, they had purchased the sugar for the preparation of sweets which they were to sell at Belpan where there was a big mela. The 4 bags containing the sugar were loaded in Sarha's (P.W. 3) cart, an operation which was witnessed by Sewakram (p. W. 4), Gumashta Mukaddam, who questioned Putu and Bacholi and passed the information gained by him to the police with the result that the cart was incercepted by Shivsahai (P.W. 7) Head-Constable at a distance of about one mile from Lormi on the way to Belpan.

(3.) IT was, however, strenuously urged that the conviction registered on 3rd of December 1946 was illegal, inasmuch as the Defence of India Act and the Rules framed thereunder had ceased to be in force on that date and there was no other law which authorised the continuance of the trial after 1-10-1946. Ii was further claimed: that the Defence of India Act being a temporary statute expired automatically and lapsed without repeal by any statute, that Rule 6 of the General Clauses Act had no application and that proceedings instituted before the expiry of the Defences of India Act could not be legally continued after its expiry. These contentions were repelled by the learned Extra Additional Sessions Judge who relied on a dictum of Alderson, B. in Stevension v. Oliver 5 Jurist 1064 which was followed in Provincial Government v. Sayed Ali A.I.R. 1946 Nag. 106. The question in that case was, however, different and distinguishable.