S. 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 applies to the Gold (Control) Ordinance and the Rules, and therefore the Rules must be deemed to be continuing even though they were repealed.

P.S.SAHAY, J.

1. This application is for quashing the entire proceeding of P. S. case No. 65 of 1968 pending in the Court of Shrimati Rekha Kumari, Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate. Bhagalpur, in which charge has been framed for contravening the provisions of Rules 126-C (1) and 126-P (2) (vi) of the Defence of India Rules.

2. On the 25th May, 1965 Mr. D. K. Sinha, Inspector of Central Excise, Patna, searched the premises of Tara Jewellery House, Bhagalpur, belonging to the petitioner and recovered 429.900 gms of primary gold and 963.500 gms of gold ornaments, both above 14 carat. Again on the 26th May, 1965 gold ornaments weighing 7428.800 gms of gold and gold ornaments were seized from the residence of the petitioner. On these allegations a petition of complaint (Annexure-1) was filed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Patna, against the petitioner and his son, Narayan Prasad Dhandania for having committed offences under R. 126 (c) (d) (h) of the Defence of India Rules. On the same day cognizance was taken and the petitioner and his son, Narayan Prasad Dhandania were summoned for trial.

3. Nine witnesses were examined by the prosecution, and charges were framed against the petitioner on 11-8-1970 the son of the petitioner, Narayan Prasad Dhandania, was however, discharged. Copies of the charges have been filed along with this application marked Annexures-2 and 2/1. It seems that the petitioner moved this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous 4160 of 1975 for the quashing of the charge, but it was summarily dismissed with certain observations on 7-11-1975. On 29-11-1975 the trial Court passed certain orders and for that the petitioner came to this Court for clarification, and necessary orders were passed on 22-12-1975. The petitioner prayed for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court which was rejected on 8-1-1976. The case of the petitioner is that no progress was made in the case for about two years and, therefore, this application has been filed for the quashing of the proceedings.

4. Mr. M. P. Pandey appearing on behalf of the Customs Department has raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner had earlier moved this Court for quashing Criminal Miscellaneous 4160 of 1975 which was dismissed on 7-11-1975, and, therefore, another application on the same fact and with the same prayer is not maintainable. Reliance in this connection has been placed on the case of U. S. Chopra V/s. State, 1955 0 CrLJ 1410. Learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner has placed reliance on Superintendent and Remembrancer, West Bengal V/s. Mohan Singh, AIR 1975 SC 1002, where their Lordships have held that the fact that a similar application for quashing the proceedings on the former occasion was rejected by the High Court is no bar to the quashing of the proceedings at the later stage, and such quashing will not amount to revision or review of the earlier order passed by the High Court. In that case a petition for quashing was filed, which was dismissed, and again another application was filed after two years and no progress was made, and the High Court quashed the proceedings, and against that the State of West Bengal moved the Supreme Court, and the application was dismissed, in spite of the fact that the same Court had rejected the application of these petitioners two years earlier. In my opinion, this decision completely supports the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. Therefore, the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the Customs Department is overruled.

5. Mr. Lalnarain Sinha appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that cognizance had been taken on 26-2-1968, and Gold (Control) Ordinance came into force on 29-6-1968 which was followed by an Act. Thus, according to him, there was a period of void between 26-2-1968 and 29-6-1968. He has, therefore, urged that the cognizance taken was bad in law and the petitioner could not be prosecuted for having committed offence on 25-5-1965 and 26-5-1965. Fu