1956 (5) TMI 39 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues: Jurisdiction of Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Essential Commodities Ordinance, 1955; Validity of prosecution under Section 8 of Essential Commodities Ordinance, 1955; Existence of Bihar Coal Control Order under relevant laws.

In this judgment by the Patna High Court, the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Gaya referred a case where the Sub-Divisional Magistrate at Aurangabad had summoned the petitioners to stand trial under Section 8 of the Essential Commodities Ordinance, 1955, for storing and selling coal without proper authorization. The Additional Sessions Judge recommended setting aside the Magistrate's order as lacking jurisdiction. The defense argued that on the alleged date of the incident, the Essential Commodities Ordinance, 1955, was not in effect, as it was replaced by Act 10 of 1955. The prosecution contended that similar provisions existed in Act 10 of 1955, but the court found that the prosecution could not proceed under the said Ordinance due to its non-existence at the time of the alleged offense.

Regarding the existence of the Bihar Coal Control Order, which was under Act 24 of 1946, it was argued that since the Act had expired, the Order should be deemed expired as well. The court analyzed Section 16 of Act 10 of 1955, which repealed specific laws but did not mention the Bihar Coal Control Order. The court also examined Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, which deals with the repeal of enactments. It was concluded that the Bihar Coal Control Order could not be governed by Section 16 of Act 10 of 1955, as it was not specifically repealed. Consequently, the court found that there was no valid Coal Control Order under the relevant laws at the time of the alleged offense, thus rendering the prosecution baseless.

In conclusion, the High Court accepted the reference and held that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate's order summoning the petitioners under Section 8 of the Essential Commodities Ordinance, 1955, lacked jurisdiction and was set aside. The judgment emphasized the importance of legal provisions and the necessity for valid legal frameworks to support prosecutions under specific laws, highlighting the significance of jurisdiction and legal validity in criminal proceedings related to essential commodities.