Temporary statutory orders lapse on expiry, and prosecution cannot continue or begin later absent a saving clause.

A temporary statutory order cannot support prosecution after it has expired by efflux of time, absent a saving clause preserving liability. Although the alleged contravention occurred while the order was in force, the complaint and challan were filed after its expiry, so proceedings could not be continued or freshly launched once the order had ceased to operate. The legal effect is that liability under a spent temporary enactment terminates with its expiry unless the legislation expressly saves pending or future action. Proceedings under the expired order were therefore liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether proceedings for an alleged violation of a temporary order could be continued after the order had ceased to remain in force by expiry of time.

Analysis: The Order was a temporary statutory instrument meant to operate for a fixed period and was not extended beyond 31 July 1983. The alleged contravention related to a period when the Order was in force, but the complaint and challan were filed after it had expired. In the absence of any saving clause preserving liability after expiry, a temporary enactment cannot sustain prosecution once it has spent itself by efflux of time. The legal position applied is that proceedings already initiated under such a temporary law terminate when the law expires, and fresh proceedings also cannot be launched thereafter for its violation.

Conclusion: Proceedings under the expired Order could not be continued and were liable to be quashed in favour of the petitioner.

---