9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the prosecution under the expired Cotton Textiles (Control of Movement) Order, 1948. 2. Interpretation of Section 16 of the Essential Commodities Ordinance, 1955, and Section 16(2) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 3. Appropriateness of Supreme Court's interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Prosecution under the Expired Cotton Textiles (Control of Movement) Order, 1948: The respondents were prosecuted for transporting two bales of saris without a permit from the Textile Controller, Bihar, under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, read with Section 3 of the Cotton Textiles (Control of Movement) Order, 1948. The respondents contended that the prosecution was invalid as the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, under which the Order was made, had expired, rendering the Order legally ineffective. 2. Interpretation of Section 16 of the Essential Commodities Ordinance, 1955, and Section 16(2) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955: The primary issue was whether the Cotton Textiles (Control of Movement) Order, 1948, survived the expiry of the 1946 Act due to the saving provisions in the subsequent Ordinance and Act. Section 16 of the Ordinance stated that any order made under the 1946 Act and in force immediately before the commencement of the Ordinance would continue in force as if made under the Ordinance. The Court held that the Order made under Section 3 of the 1946 Act could be made under Section 3 of the Ordinance, thus continuing its validity. The Court further analyzed Section 16(2) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, which essentially repeated the saving provisions of the Ordinance. The Court concluded that both the Order and the acts done under it were preserved by the Act, ensuring the Order's continued validity. Therefore, the prosecution under the Order was legitimate. 3. Appropriateness of Supreme Court's Interference under Article 136 of the Constitution: Despite the legal validity of the prosecution, the Court considered whether it was appropriate to interfere under Article 136. The alleged offense occurred more than four years prior, and there was reasonable belief on the part of the accused that the Order had expired with the 1946 Act. The application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was also filed in contravention of the Patna High Court Rules. The Court noted that public interest did not necessitate reviving the matter, and thus, decided not to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the prosecution under the Cotton Textiles (Control of Movement) Order, 1948, as saved by the Essential Commodities Ordinance, 1955, and the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. However, considering the time elapsed and procedural issues, the Court dismissed the appeal, choosing not to interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution.
|
