TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the petitioners could be prosecuted under Section 8 of the Essential Commodities Ordinance, 1955, when the alleged occurrence took place after the Ordinance had ceased to exist and no corresponding control order was shown to be in force; (ii) whether the Bihar Coal Control Order continued to operate by virtue of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, or Section 16 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
Issue (i): Whether the petitioners could be prosecuted under Section 8 of the Essential Commodities Ordinance, 1955, when the alleged occurrence took place after the Ordinance had ceased to exist and no corresponding control order was shown to be in force.
Analysis: The alleged occurrence was stated to have taken place after the Essential Commodities Ordinance, 1955 had already ceased to operate, and the prosecution was founded on that Ordinance. The existence of a similar provision in the later Essential Commodities Act, 1955 did not cure the defect, because the prosecution was not under that Act and there was no showing that the necessary control order was in force under the relevant law on the date of occurrence.
Conclusion: The prosecution under Section 8 of the Essential Commodities Ordinance, 1955 was not maintainable against the petitioners on the facts stated.
Issue (ii): Whether the Bihar Coal Control Order continued to operate by virtue of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, or Section 16 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
Analysis: Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 applies where an enactment is repealed, but the earlier Act had expired by efflux of time and was not repealed. Section 16 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 saved only orders made under the Ordinance or any other law in force immediately before the commencement of that Act. The Bihar Coal Control Order did not answer either description and therefore could not be treated as continuing in force under the saving provisions.
Conclusion: The Bihar Coal Control Order did not survive under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 or Section 16 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
Final Conclusion: The impugned summoning order was held to be without jurisdiction and was set aside, leaving no basis for the prosecution to continue on the footing adopted by the Magistrate.
Ratio Decidendi: A prosecution cannot be sustained under a law that was not in force on the date of the alleged occurrence, and a control order under an expired enactment does not continue merely because of general savings provisions unless the case falls within the statutory saving language.
TaxTMI 
