THE STATE OF BIHAR versus HIRALAL KEJRIWAL AND ANOTHER

THE STATE OF BIHAR versus HIRALAL KEJRIWAL AND ANOTHER

The Cotton Textiles (Control of Movement) Order, 1948 was saved by section 16 of the Essential Commodities Ordinance, 1955 and was continued by section 16(2) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and thus remained in force on August 30, 1955. Prosecution under the Order was valid. However, due to the delay, evolving legal interpretations, and lack of public interest in pursuing the matter further, the Court declined to interfere under Article 136 and dismissed the appeal.

Parties
Appellant: The State of Bihar; Respondents: Hiralal Kejriwal and Another
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
14 September 1959
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal by Special Leave / Final Judgment on Appeal From Patna High Court Order Discharging the Respondents
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Repeal of Statute, Saving Clause, Interpretation of Saving Clauses, Continuance of Subordinate Legislation, Essential Commodities Control Orders
Criminal Law Statutory Interpretation Repeal of Statute Saving Clause Interpretation of Saving Clauses Continuance of Subordinate Legislation Essential Commodities Control Orders

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State of Bihar

Appellant

Hiralal Kejriwal and Another

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal by Special Leave / Final Judgment on Appeal From Patna High Court Order Discharging the Respondents

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Cotton Textiles (Control of Movement) Order, 1948 continued in force after the expiry of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, by virtue of the Essential Commodities Ordinance, 1955 and the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
  2. 2 Whether the prosecution under the 1948 Order was valid at the time of the alleged offence on August 30, 1955.
  3. 3 Whether this was a fit case for interference by the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi

The Cotton Textiles (Control of Movement) Order, 1948 was saved by section 16 of the Essential Commodities Ordinance, 1955 and was continued by section 16(2) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and thus remained in force on August 30, 1955. Prosecution under the Order was valid. However, due to the delay, evolving legal interpretations, and lack of public interest in pursuing the matter further, the Court declined to interfere under Article 136 and dismissed the appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No interference with the High Court's order; accused remain discharged.
  • No order as to costs.