Judgment

AYYANGAR, J. : Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants in full we did not consider it necessary to call on the respondent since, we were clearly of the opinion that the contentions raised in the appeal possessed no merit.

2. The legality of a prosecution for contravention of the notification fixing the maximum prices at which certain categories of iron and steel could be sold is the subject-matter of this appeal. The appellants are two in number, related to each other as husband and wife. The second appellant - Sushila Devi - is " a Registered Stockholder" and is stated to be the proprietor of the firm "Balwanat Devi Sushila Devi" situated in Sultanpur in Uttar Pradesh and the first appellant- Bhagwati Saran her husband, the manager of the said firm.

3. There has bee some previous history before the present prosecution was initiated but it is sufficient for the purposes of this appeal to start with the report to the Judicial Magistrate Amathi by the officer incharge of the Police station, Sultanpur, dated August 20, 1955. It was headed "Offence - Section 11-B Iron and Steel Control Order, 1941" and set out the following facts:

"Bhagwati Saran used to work as a Karinda in the firm of Balwanta Devi Sushila Devi and had all along been doing sales and purchases at the shop, and also issued receipts under his signatures. Shrimati Sushila Devi is the wife of accused Bhagwati Saran and she was the proprietor. Balwanta Devi has died. Hence she alone is the proprietor. In the course of investigation it was also revealed that Bhagwati Saran had from time to time sold some iron-bars on behalf of this firm after receiving price more than the control rate, which he had all along been getting printed, and had been getting some other receipts checked fictitiously under the Control Act from the office of the Supply Officer. An information relating to it was given to Shri P. M. Kapoor, the then D. M. Sultanpur, by his munim Kalapnath and on it a case was registered at this police station and the investigation was made................................ On the report of the P. P. the S. P. ordered another charge-sheet to be submitted under S. 8 of the Essential Commodities Ordinance of 1955. Hence this charge-sheet under S. 11-B (III). Iron and Steel Control of Production and distribution Order, 1941, read with S. 8 of Essential Commodities Ordinance of 1955 is sent against both the accused. The accused persons after being arrested were released on bail. It is, therefore, prayed that the accused persons after being summoned may be punished".

4. The report further stated that 4 volumes of cash memos, and 5 volumes of register of Permits were deposited in the Malkhana and would be produced in evidence and followed it with a list of 13 prosecution witnesses. The Judicial Magistrate registered the case and issued summons to the accused on September 16, 1955, the case being directed to be called on September 30, 1955. The accused were thereafter examined before the Magistrate under S. 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code on March 23, 1956, and on the next day the Magistrate framed a charge against them which read as follows:

"That you between 10th January 1952 and 27th February 1952, in Sultanpur sold 11 Cwt. 12 Ib. iron bars on 11th January 1952 and 3 Cwt. iron-bars on 18-2-52 and 6 Cwt. Iron bars on 26th February 1952 at the rate of Rs. 21-3-9 per Cwt. though the controlled rate as notified in Government of India Gazette dated 1st July 1952, for the commodity was Rs 21-2-4 per Cwt. and thus you charged Rs. 1-15-0, Rs. 2-2-3 and Rs. 4-4-6 respectively excess and more than the controlled price and thereby committed an offence punishable under S. 7, E. S. Temp. P. Act 1946 read with S. 11-B (iii) of Iron and Steel Control of Production and Distribution Order of 1941 and I hereby direct that you be tried by the said Court on the said charge".

The two appellants thereupon moved the Court of the Sessions Judge, Sultanpur, to revise the order o