Important Point
Where prosecution under Essential Commodities Act was initiated for violation of an order & the order expired by efflux of time & was not revived, prosecution was liable to be dropped.

Judgment

Sunil Kumar Garg, J.— This appeal has been preferred by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment dated 2-7-1987 passed by the learned Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act. Jalore in Criminal Case No. 5/1986 by which the learned Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act. Jalore dropped the proceedings against the accused respondent holding that the trial against the accused respondent could not be proceeded further for violation of Clauses 6 and 7 of the Rajasthan Cattle Fodder (Sale of Stock and Prohibition of Export) Order, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Order of 1985) punishable under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act as on 2-7-1987, the Order of 1985 was not in force.

2. It arises in the following circumstances :

(i) On 7-11-1985 Shyam Das (P.W.2). Tehsildar Sanchore checked Truck No. RSN 9655 belonging to M/s Rakesh Transport Company in the belt area within 10 kms. Range of Border of Gujarat – Rajasthan through Fard Checking Ex.P/1 and in that Truck, the accused respondent was the driver at that time and that truck was carrying 100 sacks of Gwar powder, out of which 50 sacks were to be delivered to Tagraj Ganesh Mal and 50 sacks were to be delivered to Mishrimal Champalal. The aforesaid goods were seized through Fard Seizure is Ex. P/2.

(ii) Further case of the prosecu-tion is that goods were being carried without permit and thus, there was violation of Clauses 6 and 7 of the Order

of 1985 punishable under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

(iii) After investigation challan was filed against the accused respondent for violation of clause 6 and 7 of the Order

of 1985 punishable under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

3. That on 27-2-1986, charge was framed for offence under Section 3/7

of the Essential Commodities Act by

the learned Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act, Jalore against the accused respondent who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. That during the course of trial, when 7 witnesses had been produced by the prosecution, an application dated 25-6-1987 was moved on behalf of the accused respondent before the learned trial Court stating that since the provisions of Order of 1985 came to an end on 31-7-1986 and after 31-7-1986 Rajasthan Cattle Fodder (Sale of Stock and Prohibition of Export) Order, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Order of 1986) came into force w.e.f. Oct., 1986 and since there was no saving clause in the Order of 1986, the proceedings under the Order of 1985 could not be continued and, therefore, the proceedings be dropped and the accused be acquitted.

5. The learned Special Judge after placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Jai Chand v. State of Rajasthan1 came to the conclusion that after July, 1986 no proceedings in respect of violation of provisions of Order of 1985 could be taken or continued and hence, the learned Special Judge dropped the proceedings vide judgment dtd. 2-7-1987.

6. Aggrieved from the judgment dtd. 2-7-1987 passed by the learned Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act, Jalore, the present appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan.

7. In this appeal, the main submission of the learned P.P. is that when the offence was committed, the Order of 1985 was in force and thus, the accused respondent committed breach of provisions of Order of 1985 and thus, he should have been punished.

8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment dtd. 2-7-1987 passed by the learned Special Judge and submitted that no interference is called for in the impugned judgment and order. The learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Seth Jagamander Das and Ors.2

9. I have heard both and perused the record of the case.

10. It may be stated that this Court in the case of Jai Chand (supra) has held as under:

“The temporary statute has force till it lasts and no action can be taken under it after it cease