( 1 ) THE appct. , Ram Kishan, has come up in revision to this Ct. against the order of the learned ses. J. by which his conviction under Section 6, U. P. Control of Supplies (Temporary Powers)Act, Act II [2] of 1947, hereinafter called the Supplies Act, has been affirmed. He has been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 200/- or, in default, to undergo R. I. for two months.

( 2 ) IT appears that on 17-6-1947, the Dist. Mag. of Bijnor, under the delegated authority of the provincial Govt. , passed an Order (Ex. P. 7) under Section 3 (e) of the Supplies Act controlling the rate for hiring out Kolhus. It provided that a Kolhu 8" x 11" might be hired out for Rs. 86/only for the whole sugarcane crushing season. Para. 3 of the Order provided that it would have retrospective effect from 2-12-1946. Lastly, it provided for punishment for a contravention of its provisions and added that the Ct. trying any offence against that Order might also direct that any stock in respect of which the Order had been contravened be forfeited to Govt. On 3-12-1947, the appct. who is the Munib of a firm known as Bhannamal Gulzari Lal hired out a kolhu 8" x 11" to one Natthu Singh for RS. 145/- when the control rate as fixed by the Dist. Mags, order was Rs. 86/- only. He was accordingly prosecuted under Section 6 of the Act for contravening the order of the Dist. Mag. In the course of the trial, he admitted that he had hired out the kolhu in question to Natthu Singh for BS. 145. He, however, pleaded that the order of the Dist. Mag. was not in force on the date of the transaction, i. e. , 3-12-1947.

( 3 ) THE learned Mag. , however, held that the order of the Dist. Mag. dated 17-6-1947, fixing Rs. 86/- only as the rate for hiring out Kolhus was in force on the date of the transaction, i. e. , on 3-12-1947. The appct. was, therefore, convicted and sentenced to undergo R. I. for six months and also to pay a fine of one thousand rupees and the stock, in respect of which the order had been contravened, was also declared to be forfeited to Govt.

( 4 ) ON appeal, the learned Ses. J. agreed with the trial Ct. that the order of the Dist. Mag. was in force and had been contravened by the accused. His conviction was, therefore, maintained. Regarding the question of sentence, however, the learned Judge found as a fact that the appct. had entered into the transaction with Natthu Singh in absolute ignorance of any binding orders prescribing the rates for hiring out Kolhus. In view of these circumstances, the appeal was partly allowed, the sentence of imprisonment as well as the order for forfeiture of stocks were set aside and the sentence of fine was also reduced to Rs. 200/- only, with two months R. I. in default of payment of fine.

( 5 ) THIS case, in the first instance, came on for hearing before a learned single Judge, who referred it to a Bench of two Judges. In view of the importance of the questions involved in the case, the Bench, on 4-11-1949, referred two questions to a F. B.

( 6 ) TWO questions have been referred to the F. B. for decision :

(1) Whether the U. P. Control of Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, Act II [2] of 1947, was in force on 3-12-1947, or would be deemed to be in force on that date in view of the U. P. Ordinance No. VIII [8] of 1948 and the U. P. Act XLIII [48] of 1948 ?

(2) Whether Sub-section (4) of Section 1, U. P. Control of Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1947, in so far as it empowers the Provincial Govt. to extend the life of the Act, is ultra vires the powers of the Provincial Legislature ?

( 7 ) WITH regard to the first question, it is clear that by reason of the provisions contained in section l (4) of the Act, it would cease to have effect on the expiration of one year beginning with 1-10-1946, i. e. after 30-9-1947. There is, however, a provision contained in Sub-clause (4)to the effect that the Provincial Government may, by notified order, direct that the life of the Act would be extended for one year more from that date, i