Valid sanction, ordinance continuity, false declaration, and lawful confiscation sustained in a prosecution under a penal ordinance.

A prosecution under the penal ordinance was upheld because the previous sanction was treated as a valid sanction of the Central Government, duly authenticated under the rules of business and relating to the specific acts charged. The ordinance was held to remain in force until repealed, and sections 3 and 4 were not found unconstitutional as the restrictions were considered reasonable in the interests of the general public during an emergency. The declarant's statement that the notes belonged to him was found false at least in part and knowingly so, supporting the conviction. The confiscation of the currency notes was also sustained as a lawful disposal order over property produced before the court.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the prosecution was vitiated for want of a valid previous sanction by the Central Government; (ii) whether the ordinance had lapsed before the prosecution and whether sections 3 and 4 were unconstitutional as infringing the right to hold, acquire and dispose of property; (iii) whether the applicant made a false or only partially true declaration within the meaning of the ordinance; and (iv) whether the order of confiscation or forfeiture of the currency notes was lawful.

Issue (i): whether the prosecution was vitiated for want of a valid previous sanction by the Central Government.

Analysis: The sanction was treated as a sanction of the Central Government, duly authenticated by an officer authorised under the rules of business. The requirement was only that there should be a sanction for the particular acts forming the basis of the prosecution. It was not necessary that the sanctioning authority should be shown to have personally considered the allegations in a particular manner or that the sanction should recite the facts in any particular form.

Conclusion: The sanction was valid and the prosecution was not vitiated on that ground.

Issue (ii): whether the ordinance had lapsed before the prosecution and whether sections 3 and 4 were unconstitutional as infringing the right to hold, acquire and dispose of property.

Analysis: The ordinance was held to have remained in force until repealed. Sections 3 and 4 were examined against Article 19(1)(f) and Article 13, but the restrictions were held to be in the interest of the general public and reasonable having regard to the emergency. The conviction, however, rested on breach of the declaration provisions, not on any independent violation of sections 3 or 4.

Conclusion: The ordinance had not lapsed, and sections 3 and 4 were not unconstitutional.

Issue (iii): whether the applicant made a false or only partially true declaration within the meaning of the ordinance.

Analysis: The declaration stated that the notes belonged to the declarant and were not benami holdings, whereas the applicant was not the owner and the notes were not shown to belong to him. The factual findings of the courts below supported the conclusion that the declaration was false at least in part and was made with knowledge of its falsity.

Conclusion: The applicant had made a false or partially true declaration and the conviction on that basis stood.

Issue (iv): whether the order of confiscation or forfeiture of the currency notes was lawful.

Analysis: The confiscation was upheld as an order within the criminal court's power of disposal over property produced before it. The absence of a claimant, the origin of the notes from the temple treasury, and the connection of the property with the transaction were treated as supporting the order. The revisional court declined to interfere with the exercise of discretion.

Conclusion: The confiscation order was lawful and was sustained.

Final Conclusion: The conviction, sentence, and confiscation order were maintained, and the revision failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A prosecution under a penal ordinance requiring previous sanction is valid if the sanction is shown to relate to the specific acts prosecuted and is duly authenticated under the applicable rules of business; in revisional jurisdiction, concurrent factual findings and a lawful disposal order over property produced before the court will not be disturbed absent illegality or jurisdictional error.

---