( 1 ). In the writ petition, the petitioners had challenged Vires of Ss. 4 and 29 (2) of the Act. on the ground that these violate the fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed under Articles 14 and 19 (l) (f) of the Constitution. Mr. R P. Kapur, petitioner No. 1 who appeared in person and argued the case both on his behalf and on behalf of the other petitioners, did not press this ground at the time of the arguments in view of the Presidential Order suspending the invocation of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India during the Emergency which was subse-quently ratified by Parliament. Mr. Kapur, however challenged the vires of section 29 (2) of the Act on the ground that it was an arbitrary piece of legislation and did not lay down any guidelines for the imposition of penalties provided under section 29 (2) of the Act. In support of this ground, he argued that the penalty provided under section 29 (2) of the Act was far too excessive in considering the nature of the offence, and that a person convicted under this section was liable to be sentenced to the maximum penalty under the section irrespective of the gravity or otherwise of the offence committ