The Sub Divisional Magistrate, and there after the learned Sessions Judge in revision took the view that it was premature to decide the question.
A Division Bench of the High Court by its judgment dated May 22, 1975 upheld the validity of the numberifications and dismissed the petition.
It saw numbersubstance in the plea of the appellants that the numberifications did number specifically mention the area over which they were to operate and, therefore, were invalid.
From the judgment and order dated the 22nd May, 1975 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Misc.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
On application by the appellants the High Court granted a certificate under sub clause c of clause 1 of Article 134 of the Constitution that the case was fit for appeal to this Court.
During the proceedings before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, the appellants challenged the validity of the three numberifications.
Application No.
Pramod Swarup for the Appellants.
A. Francis and R.N. Podar for Respondent No.
2138 of 1971.
552 of 1976.
The appellants are being prosecuted for various offences under s. 20 and s. 21 of the Forward Contracts Regulation Act, 1952 on the ground that three transactions of purchase of Tur Arhar were entered into by them in violation of Notifications Nos.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PATHAK, J. This appeal by certificate granted under sub clause c of clause 1 of Article 134 of the Constitution by the Allahabad High Court is directed against a judgment of that Court dismissing the appellants petition for quashing criminal proceedings against them under the Forward Contracts Regulation Act, 1952.
K. Bhat, for Respondent No.
1384 B, 1384 C and 1384 D, all dated July 17, 1958 issued by the Central Government under that Act.
They applied to the Allahabad High Court under s. 561A read with s. 435, Code of Criminal Procedure, raising the same question and praying for the quashing of the criminal proceedings.
The learned Single Judge of the High Court hearing the petition companysidered the question to be of substantial importance and accordingly the case was referred to a larger Bench.
