Skip to content


In Re: R. Sivarama Padayachi and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1948Mad241; (1947)2MLJ424
AppellantIn Re: R. Sivarama Padayachi and anr.
Excerpt:
- .....j.1. the petitioners have been convicted for an offence in contravention of section 3(1) of the food grains control order read with rule 81(4) of the defence of india rules and have been sentenced to pay a fine of rs. 100 each.2. the point taken in support of this revision petition is that the madras food grains control order came into force only on the 1st january, 1945, whereas the offence charged under the order was committed on the nth may, 1944. the learned assistant public prosecutor was disposed to argue first that a prosecution for the offence could be properly made under the madras food grains control order because of the provisions of section 10 of that order. section 10 however applies only to orders made in pursuance of the provisions of the food grains control order,.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Happell, J.

1. The petitioners have been convicted for an offence in contravention of Section 3(1) of the Food Grains Control Order read with Rule 81(4) of the Defence of India Rules and have been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100 each.

2. The point taken in support of this revision petition is that the Madras Food Grains Control Order came into force only on the 1st January, 1945, whereas the offence charged under the order was committed on the nth May, 1944. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor was disposed to argue first that a prosecution for the offence could be properly made under the Madras Food Grains Control Order because of the provisions of Section 10 of that order. Section 10 however applies only to orders made in pursuance of the provisions of the Food Grains Control Order, 1942, and seems to have no application to Section 3(1) of the Madras Food Grains Control Order. The lood Grains Control Order, 1942, which was repealed by Madras Order of 1945 on the 1st January, 1945, contained the same provisions as that embodied in Section 3(1) of the Madras Food Grains Control Order. Having regard to Section 6 of the General Clauses Act a prosecution could have been instituted under Section 3(1) of the Food Grains Control Order, 1942, notwithstanding the fact that that order had been repealed. Unfortunately, however, the prosecution was not instituted under that Order ; but sanction was given by the Collector and District Magistrate, Tanjore, for the prosecution to be instituted under Section 3(1) of the Madras Food Grains Control Order, 1945, and the charge was framed against the petitioners as a charge under Section 3(1) of the Madras Food Grains Control Order, and they were convicted of an offence in contravention of that section. The paint taken is purely technical; but it must be held that the Collector and District Magistrate had no jurisdiction to make an order sanctioning the prosecution under the Madras Food Grains Control Order, in respect of an offence committed before the date on which that order came into force.

3. The convictions of the petitioners must therefore be set aside and their petitions are allowed. The fines, if paid, will be refunded to them.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //