FACTS :- One Harprasad G. Gupta (accused No. 1) was the manager and one Ardeshir Rustomji Mulian Phiroz (accused No. 2) was the Secretary of the Dhanraj Mills, Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the mills). They were working under the orders and control of the accused No. 3 Ramgopal Ganpatrai Rula who was the director of the mills, holding 60 per cent. of the shares. A private limited company called Ramgopal Ganpatrai and Sons Ltd. hereinafter referred to as R.G. and Sons, Ltd., was the managing agent of the mills. The selling agency of the mills was with Ramriskhdas Balkison and Sons, Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as R.B. and Sons, Ltd.) In both these companies (R.G. and Sons Ltd. and R.B. and Sons Ltd.) the accused No. 3 and the members of his family held major number of shares. The managing director of both these private limited companies was the accused No. 3. Accused No. 1 was the manager and the accused No. 2 the secretary of the mills and also of these two companies viz., R.G. and Sons Ltd., and R.B. and Sons Ltd. Madhuvachan B. Bhat was the cashier of the mills. Chhotalal H. Oza was the accountant and cashier of R.B. and Sons, Ltd. Of the R.G. and Sons. Ltd., Chunilal M. Oza was the accountant and the cashier. On 12-1-1946, the Ordinances No. II and III of 1946 were published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary. The former was issued in order to require Banks and Government Treasuries to furnish information concerning bank notes of certain denominational values held by them. The latter was issued in order to provide for the demonetisation of certain high denomination notes. On 16-1-1946 the accused Nos. 1 and 2 went to the Bank of India, Ltd., with the declaration, which was made by both of them on behalf of the mills in pursuance of S. 6 of Ordinance III of 1948, and 276 currency notes of Rs. 1000 each and the list of the said notes. The declaration was signed by accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the mills and presented to the Bank of India, Ltd. The accused were prosecuted under S. 7 of the High Denomination Notes (Demonetisation) Ordinance No. III of 1946, on the allegation that the declaration, dated 15-1-1946, which was made on behalf of the Mills, by accused Nos. 1 and 2 at the instigation of the accused No. 3 was false to the knowledge of the three accused, in that the sums of Rs. 1,57,000, Rs. 85,000 and Rs. 34,000 mentioned in cl. 16 of the declaration did not belong to the mills and were not in prossession of the mills, on 11-1-1946, but belonged to the accused No. 3 and were in the personal safe of the accused No. 3 and went directly from the said safe to the Bank of India Ltd., on 16-1-1946. It was alleged that in order to defeat the provisions of Ordinance No. III falsification of the books of account of R.G. and Sons, Ltd., R.B. and Sons, Ltd., and the mills, was made on 14-1-1946, by the making of certain false entries therein as of 11-1-1946. The charge against the accused Nos. 1 and 2 was that they knowingly made a false declaration in respect of Rs. 2,76,000, in currency notes of Rs. 1,000 each and thereby committed an offence punishable under S. 7 of Ordinance III of 1916, and that the accused No. 3 abetted the commission of the offence by the accused Nos. 1 and 2. The accused Nos. 1 and 2 were convicted and sentenced to one days simple imprisonment and fines of Rs. 8,000 and Rs. 2000 respectively. The accused No. 3 was given the benefit of doubt and was acquitted. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 came in appeal to the High Court.]

. Vyas, J:- [After setting out facts above summarized and dealing with points which are not material to the report His Lordship proceeded.] The second argument which Mr. Amin has pressed into service for contending that the sanction is invalid is that it is not a sanction given by the Central Government at all. For the purpose of supporting this argument a comparison is drawn by him between cl. (23), Cotton Cloth and Yarn Control Order, 1943, and sub-s. (S) of S. 7 of Ordinance III of