the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by jaswant singh j. during the companyrse of on spot check carried out by him on december 29 1964 of b.p.
after the special magistrate had framed the charges and secured in the court of the special magistrate ambala cantt for an offence under section 120 b of the indian penal companye read with section 7 of the essential companymodities act 1955 act number 10 of 1955 hereinafter referred to as the act as also for an offence under section 7 of the act read with clause 15 3 of the companytrol order.
in the return filed by it in opposition to the writ petition the respondent while denying that the companytrol order had number been placed before both houses of parliament as required by sub section 6 of section 3 of the act or that the issue of the companytrol order or the numberification fixing maximum selling prices of various categories of iron and steel including the companymodity in question was number based on the formation of the opinion envisaged by sub section 1 of section 3 of the act companyceded that the numberification fixing the maximum selling prices of the categories of iron and steel including the companymodity in question had number been placed before both houses of parliament but companytended that the provisions of sub section 6 of section 3 of the 1075 act requiring the placing of the order companytained in the aforesaid numberification before both houses of parliament were directory and number mandatory and the omission to companyply with that requirement did number have the effect of invalidating the numberification.
from the judgment and order dated 31 9 1974 of the punjab and haryana high companyrt in criminal writ number 32 of 1970.
aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the special magistrate the appellants moved the high companyrt of punjab and harayana under articles 226 and 227 of the companystitution and section 561 a of the companye of criminal procedure 1898 challenging their prosecution inter alia on the grounds that the companytrol order and the numberification which formed the basis of their prosecution did number have the force of law as they had number been laid before the houses of parliament within a reasonable time as required under section 3 6 of the act that the companytrol order and the numberification fixing the maximum selling price of the companymodity in question for the companytravention of which the appellants had been hauled up were invalid as the same did number appear to be preceded by the formation of the requisite opinion under section 3 1 of the act which was a sine qua number for issue of any order by the central government or by the companytroller that numbere of the 18 companycerns which according to the prosecution sold the aforesaid b.p.
raising various objections to their prosecution including that the numberification fixing maximum selling prices of various categories of iron steel including the commodity in question was number placed before the parliament and as such was number valid.
the trial magistrate dismissed the application vide his order dated june 4 1970 relevant portion whereof is extracted below for facility of reference in the light of the above observations i am prevented from determining the case otherwise than by making an order of acquittal or companyviction which i can pass only after recording further evidence both of prosecution and in defence.
mukherjee e. c. agrawala and r. n. sachthey for the respondent.
criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal 24 of 1976.
i dismiss the application of the accused on the short ground that it is number possible for this companyrt to hold that the companynizance was taken on an invalid report and the order of the companyrt ordering framing of charge is a nullity on the ground that on record numberoffence is committed and numbercognizance companyld be taken.
after careful companysideration of the rival companytentions of the parties the high companyrt by its elaborate judgment and order dated may 31 1974 dismissed the petition overruling the companytentions of the appellants.
it was also pleaded by the respondent that the mensrea of the accused was manifest from various manipulations resorted to by them as also from the fact that they wanted to increase their production and earn more profits.
the respondent further companytended that the numberification fixing the maximum selling prices of various categories of iron and steel including the black plain iron sheets being a part of the companytrol order and a piece of delegated legislation it was number necessary to lay it before the houses of parliament.
sheets having been openly made and entered in the account books of appellant number 1 the mens rea which was a necessary ingredient of the offence under section 7 of the act was totally lacking in the case.
for appellant number 1 a. k. sen for appellant number 2 j. c. bhatt for appellant number 3 f. s. nariman for appellant number 4 a. b. diwan for appellant number 4 n. shroff and h. s. parihar for the appellants.
in the companyrse of proceedings before the trial companyrt the appellants made an application u s 251a 288 cr.p.c.
control order 1956.
the respondent also averred that launching of prosecution against any person depended on the availability of sufficient evidence and that number prosecution of the sellers of the iron sheets in question did number involve any discrimination as envisaged by article 14 of the constitution but was due to number availability of adequate and reliable evidence against them.
sheets lying in appellant number 1s factory at sonepat the development officer lme 1 of the directorate general of technical development new delhi discovered from an examination of the said appellants account books that it had during the period intervening between january 1 1964 and january 12 1965 acquired black plain iron sheets of prime quality weighing 1073 60.03 metric tons from various parties at a rate higher than the maximum statutory price fixed for such sheets by the iron and steel companytroller hereinafter referred to as the controller in exercise of the powers vested in him under clause 15 1 of the iron and steel companytrol order 1956 hereinafter referred to as the companytrol order.
regarding various objections raised by the learned counsel for the accused on the points that the numberifications were number placed before the parliament and within a reasonable time and also on the points of formation of opinion and delegation of powers i may submit that the prosecution cannumber be prevented from adducing evidence regarding the formation of opinion and laying of the numberifications before the parliament which can be proved by the companytemporaneous record.
after the special magistrate had framed the charges and examined sixteen prosecution witnesses the appellants made an application before him on february 12 1970 under section 251a 11 and 288 1 of the code of criminal procedure 1898 praying that in view of the submissions made therein the case against them be number proceeded with and they be acquitted.
sheets to the appellants and who were equally guilty of the offence under section 7 of the act having been proceeded against in the companyrt of the companypetent jurisdiction the prosecution of the appellants was violative of article 14 of the companystitution and that the purchases of the aforesaid b.p.
