Broad regulatory power over essential commodities can include export restrictions, and convictions cannot rest on a non-existent admission.

Words conferring power to regulate trade and commerce in essential commodities were construed broadly to include export restrictions when such restrictions were ancillary to maintaining supply and equitable distribution. On that construction, the East Punjab Cotton Cloth and Yarn (Regulation of Movement) Order, 1947, was treated as within delegated authority. The text also notes that convictions based materially on a supposed admission not found in the record could not safely stand, because guilt should not be decided on a mistaken premise; the proper course was a rehearing on the evidence actually available. The matter was therefore remitted for fresh determination.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the East Punjab Cotton Cloth and Yarn (Regulation of Movement) Order, 1947, was validly made within the powers delegated under the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, so as to cover export restrictions; (ii) Whether the convictions could be sustained where the appellate findings had relied materially on a supposed admission by one accused which was not in fact on record, requiring rehearing.

Issue (i): Whether the East Punjab Cotton Cloth and Yarn (Regulation of Movement) Order, 1947, was validly made within the powers delegated under the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, so as to cover export restrictions.

Analysis: The control scheme in the Essential Supplies legislation was read in the light of its object of maintaining supply and equitable distribution of essential commodities. The words regulating trade and commerce were construed broadly and in their ordinary sense. Restriction on export outside the Province, including export to a neighbouring foreign territory, was treated as capable of falling within that language and, in any event, as ancillary to regulation of production and supply. The existence of separate import and export control legislation did not negative the validity of the impugned Order, because the two sets of enactments operated in different fields and were directed to different purposes.

Conclusion: The Order was held to be within the delegated authority and the constitutional challenge failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the convictions could be sustained where the appellate findings had relied materially on a supposed admission by one accused which was not in fact on record, requiring rehearing.

Analysis: The findings of the courts below had proceeded in substantial part on an alleged admission regarding presence at the customs barrier, but the record disclosed no such admission. In those circumstances, the Court held that it would not be proper to decide guilt finally on the existing record. Since the supposed admission was highly prejudicial and its effect on the findings could not be safely assessed, the appropriate course was to ensure a rehearing on the evidence actually available, excluding the mistaken premise. As the two cases were closely connected, the same course was directed for both appellants.

Conclusion: The convictions were set aside and the matters were remitted for fresh hearing.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, but only for the limited purpose of setting aside the existing judgments and directing a fresh determination on the evidence on record.

Ratio Decidendi: Words conferring power to regulate trade and commerce in essential commodities may validly extend to restrictions on export when such restrictions are ancillary to the statutory object of maintaining supply and equitable distribution, and a conviction founded materially on a non-existent admission cannot safely be sustained without a rehearing.

---