Vyas J.

1. This is a revision application by the Government of the State of Bombay for the setting aside of the order of discharge passed by the Resident Magistrate, First Class, Surat, on 9-1-1950. By that order, the learned Magistrate discharged the opponent accused Ramniklal N. Joshi, who was prosecuted under Section 7, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946 (XXIV [24] of 1946) on account of an alleged breach by him of the provisions of Clause 3A (1) of the Essential Articles Restricted Acquisition and Possession Order, 1943. A revision application against the said discharge was made in the High Court by the State of Bombay, but the High Court made the following order on 18-5-1950: "Papers to be returned to the appellant with a direction that he may present them to the Sessions Court, Surat." A revision application was then filed by the State in the Court of Session at Surat. The Additional Sessions Judge, Surat, dismissed it, holding it to be time-barred. He observed that in view of the bar of limitation, it was not necessary to go into the merits of the case but said that on merits it was clear that the accused had contravened the provisions of Clause 3A (1) of the Essential Articles Restricted Acquisition and Possession Order, 1943. The Additional Sessions Judge having dismissed the revision application, the Government of the State of Bombay has approached this Court in revision against the order of discharge.

2. At the outset the learned Government Pleader enquired whether this Court had any objection to his arguing the matter in view of the fact that at one time the opponent and he were practising as members of the Surat bar. On this Court assuring him that it had no objection whatever to his arguing the implication, he proceeded with his arguments.

3. Dealing first with the point of limitation, on which ground the Additional Sessions Judge, Surat, dismissed the application filed before him, it is to be noted that the order of the Magistrate discharging the accused was passed on January 9, 1950. The revision application before the Court of Session, Surat, was filed on May 29, 1950. The present application was filed in the High Court on October 19, 1950. Now, we are not referred by the learned advocate for the opponent to any provision in the law of limitation which says that this application is barred by time or that the one filed before the Sessions Court, Surat, was so barred. Our attention is drawn to Rule 119 of the Criminal Manual issued by the High Court of Bombay, 1947 (p. 98), which says :

"Application for the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction in criminal matters to a Sessions Judge or a District Magistrate must be made within 30 days from the date of the decision complained of, exclusive of the time required for obtaining the necessary certified copies :

Provided that such an application may be admitted after the said period, if the applicant satisfies the Court that be had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period."

This is merely a working rule issued for the guidance of the criminal Courts subordinate to the High Court and does not, and cannot, lay down any law on the subject of limitation. If an appeal against an acquittal could be filed by Government within six months from the date of an acquittal, the period for the filing of a revisional application, as far as Government is concerned, could obviously not have been intended to be less than six months. In our opinion, therefore, the revisional application made by the State of Bombay before the Court of Session at Surat on May 29, 1950, was within time and should not have been dismissed on the ground of limitation by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Rule 73, chapter XIII, of the Rules of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Appellate Side, 1950, (page 30) says :

"(1) Applications by the Government for the exercise of the Courts Revisional Jurisdiction in Criminal matters must be made within six months from