The delegation of powers under Sections 3 and 5 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, was not excessive and was guided by reasonable restrictions in the interests of the general public under Article 19 (6) of the Constitution.

( 1 ) TWO petitioners, Sudhanshu Bhusan Pal and Bhagat Singh make this application under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order charging them in the criminal case and prosecution under Sections 7 and 8 of the Essential Commodities Act dated the 5th January, 1958.

( 2 ) THE petitioners obtained this Rule on the 10th December, 1958 and even a stay of the pending criminal proceedings. There was no order for expeditious hearing of this application. The result is that the criminal proceedings have remained stayed for these long four years. Such a prolonged stay of a pending criminal case through the process of Article 226 of the Constitution is in many cases calamitous for the ultimate prosecution because by the time when the application ultimately fails, the long stay has practically wiped out in many cases important, relevant and irreplaceable evidence on which the prosecution was launched and on which prosecution depended. The sections of the Criminal Procedure Code could easily have been invoked by the petitioners for determination of the point which they seek by this application under Article 226 of the Constitution. In fact the petitioners before the Criminal Court took time to make an application for revision under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but instead of ultimately doing that what they did they adopted Article 226 of the Constitution. A revision petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could have disposed of this matter speedily instead of holding up the criminal prosecution for four years. Even the Constitutional point could have been referred under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Even if the criminal court did not act under Section 432, Criminal Procedure Code, Section 439 of the Code could have been used to determine the point. The reason why I am indicating this is that this kind of procedure and this kind of stay of pending criminal cases and prosecution except in very special circumstances, should not as a rule be encouraged under the cover of Article 226 of the Constitution. Ordinary procedure under the Criminal Procedure Code is in such cases speedier and ampler remedy and the discretion of Constitutional remedy under Article 226 should not be used to subvert the ordinary process of law and procedure.

( 3 ) COMING now to the facts of this case, the charge against the petitioners is that they illegally possessed and transported for sale in Lorry No. WBL 2992 soft coke in excess of the amount mentioned in the road pass without any permit or document on the 5th of January, 1958 at the crossing of Taratala Road and Budge Budge Road and they were charged with diverting the soft coke other than that specified in the road pass and in the permit in violation of the Colliery Control Order 1945 and Soft Coke Distribution Order 1955 under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. No further facts are relevant for the purpose of determining the points canvassed before me.

( 4 ) THIS prosecution under the Essential Commodities Act is challenged on the ground first, that the West Bengal Soft Coke Distribution Order 1955, whose violation is alleged against the petitioner, is no longer good law as it stands repealed by reason of Section 16 (1) (b) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The argument on this point is that Section 16 (1) (b) repeals "any other law in force in any State immediately before the commencement of this Act in so far as such law controls or authorises the control of the production, supply and distribution of, and trade and commerce in, any essential commodity". Therefore, Mr. Dutta, learned Advocate for the petitioners contends that the West Bengal Soft Coke Distribution Order, 1955, has been repealed and therefore, no prosecution for its violation can any longer be initiated.

( 5 ) THE argument would have been very forceful but for the fact that it is based on a disregard of the significant expression in Section