Chandrasekhara Ayyar, J.
1. This appeal is filed by the Provincial Government to challenge the view taken by the Additional First Class Magistrate of Anantapur that a mere notification of prohibition of transport of grain in the District Gazette was not enough but that knowledge of the prohibition must be brought home to the accused by publication of the order in the village or the locality by beating of tomtom or by other means. The First Class Magistrate is, in my opinion, wrong when he states that before there could be a conviction for violation of the prohibitory order, knowledge on the part of the accused should be shown in any particular manner, Though it may be that the District Gazette or the Fort St. George Gazette is rarely read by people of this class, still statutes often prescribe or provide that such publication is enough notice and it is not open to persons who violate the law to plead ignorance.
2. The real point which can be urged on behalf of the respondents is this, namely, that it has not been proved by the prosecution that the Collector, who made the prohibitory order was of the opinion that the notification in the Gazette or publication of the order on the board of the taluk office was best adapted for informing persons whom the order concerned. Had he expressed such opinion and directed publication of the order on its basis, it is not open to Courts to take a different view and say that another method would be better adapted for conveying information to the public. In other words, once he exercises his discretion as to the manner of publication, the discretion cannot be interfered with. But there is no proof in this case that he did say that pubication in the District Gazette or in the board in the taluk office was enough. It may be that there is such an order, but it has not been filed, and in its absence, we cannot assume that the authority who made the prohibitory order prescribed a particular mode of publication. Itis for the prosecution to prove every link in the chain, and if this order is not placed before the Court, no question of presumption will arise in favour of the prosecution to fill up the gap. Rule 119 prescribes that in the case of an order of a general nature or affecting a class of persons,, the authority who makes the order shall publish notice of such order in such mariner as may in his opinion be best adapted for informing persons whom the order concerns. The prosecution has to show before relying on the order prohibiting transport of grain that there was publication of the order in accordance with what the authority, officer or person issuing it considered was best adapted for conveying information to the persons whom the order concerns. Otherwise it is possible, though not probable that the publication relied on is not the publication prescribed. This point is noticed casually by the First Class Magistrate but is not dealt with by him at length as he proceeded upon the other ground; namely, that the order despite publication in the Gazette or in the board of the taluk office was not within the knowledge of the respondents and the villagers in the neighbourhood.
3. The appeal fails for this defect. I consider it desirable that in prosecutions under the Defence of India Rules, the order of the authority issuing the prohibitory order prescribing the manner of publication is also filed so that there can be no technical objection of this kind.