The saving clause in Article 369 of the Constitution preserves the continuity of laws made by Parliament beyond the prescribed five years for things done or omitted to be done, including prosecutions for offences committed during the continuance of a temporary Act.

( 1 ) THE order in this case shall also govern the disposal of Criminal Revisions Nos. 403 and 407 of 1957.

( 2 ) CRIMINAL Revisions Nos. 402 and 403 of 1957 are references under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad, in two cases pending for trial in the criminal court below. Criminal Revision No. 407 of 1957 has been filed by one of the accused Hiralal Sutwala in whose favour also there is the reference in Criminal Revision No. 402 of 1957. As regards the last revision (Criminal Revision No. 407 of 1957), it is sufficient to say that Shri chaturvedi of Allahabad, the learned counsel for Hiralal Sutwala did not press it. In view of this, the revision will have to be dismissed. I order accordingly.

( 3 ) THE other two revisions, as has been stated above, involve consideration of a reference made by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad, in which he has recommended the quashing of the charges framed against the accused who are shown as non-applicants in the two revisions. The facts of the case are as follows: on the 29th November, 1948 the accused, who are the non-applicants, were alleged to be travelling from Bombay to Kanpur. In their possession was found at itarsi an excess quantity of textiles, which at that time were controlled. The prosecutions in respect of the alleged offences are the subject-matter of the charges and the references in question.

( 4 ) THE history of the prosecution may now be given. The first challan was put up on 17th February, 1949. It appears that that challan was withdrawn and a fresh challan including more accused was filed on 29th May, 1949. No contention has been raised before me that the withdrawal of the challan or the addition of more accused in the subsequent challan is an infringement of any provisions of law. I need not therefore refer to it. Charges were framed on 19th January, 1957.

( 5 ) WHAT is contended is that the prosecutions are in respect of offences under the essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, (hereinafter the Act), read with clause 3 of the Cotton Textiles (Control of Movement) Order, 1948. By the time the charges have been framed the Act under which these prosecutions are being conducted has ceased to be law because it was temporary, no prosecution, it is urged, can be continued after the expiry of a temporary Act and reliance is placed on two rulings -- one of the Allahabad High Court reported in Jugmendar Das v. State, AIR 1951: AH 703 and the other by the Supreme court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jagamandar Das, AIR 1954 SC 683. In the last mentioned case, Mahajan C. J, observed as follows :

"when a Statute is repealed or comes to an automatic end by afflux of time, no prosecution for acts done during the continuance of the repealed or expired Act can be commenced after the date of its repeal or expiry because that would amount to the enforcement of a repealed or a dead Act. In cases of repeal of statutes this rule stands modified by section 6 of the General Clauses Act. An expiring Act however is not governed by the rule enunciated in that section,"

( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the non-applicants rely upon this observation and say that no prosecutions for a breach of the Act can be initiated or continued after the expiry of the Act which was temporary.

( 7 ) I referred the learned counsel to a decision of the Nagpur High Court reported in Provincial Government, C. P. and Berar v. Sayad Ali, AIR 1946 Nag 106, where apparently a contrary view has been taken. In that case Steavenson v. Oliver, 151 er 1024 was explained and it was pointed out in the penultimate paragraph of the judgment that offences do not become dispunishable by the expiry of a temporary act. The passage in Craies on Statute Law is based on that case. The matter appeared to be covered by conflicting authorities. Though my duty pointed it out to me that I should follow the Supreme Court ruling, I had to consider whet