ORDER
Rajendra Saxena, J.
1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr. P. C. whereby the petitioners have prayed that FIR Nos. 22, 43, and 49 of the year 1993 registered at Police Station, Banswara against them be quashed and respondents be directed not to proceed further on the basis of those FIRs.
2. Petitioner, Banswara Syntex Limited, is a Company and has its factory at Banswara for the manufacture of Synthetic blended yarn. Petitioners No. 2 to 6 are its Executive Director, Chairman and Managing Director, Vice President, Factory Manager and Cost and Production Controller respectively.
3. Now briefly the facts. By notification dt. 29-3-90 (Annex. 1) read with notification dt. 11-5-90 (Annex. 2) and notification dated 17-5-90 (Annex. 3), the Textile Commissioner, Bombay issued directions that every producer of yarn shall pack yarn for ‘civil consumption in hank yarn form in each quarterly period commencing from April/June, 1990 and every subsequent quarterly period in proportion of not less than 50% of total yarn packed by him during each quarterly period for civil consumption. Aforementioned notification further provided that not less than eighty percent of the yarn required to be packed in hank form shall be of counts 40s and that the obligation to pack hank yarn pertaining to a particular quarterly period could be fulfilled before the end of month succeeding such period to which the obligation pertained. Those notifications were issued by the Textile Commissioner in exercise of the powers conferred on him by Clause 16 of the Textile (Control) Order, 1986 (in short, ‘the Order 1986’.). The Order. 1986 was issued Under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. 1955 (hereinafter referred-to as ‘the Act of 1955’). The directions issued by notifications Annexs. 1, 2 and 3 came into force on 1 -4-90 and were to continue in force till 31-3-95.
4. It is alleged that M/s. Banswara Syntex Limited is the producer of yarn and is subject to the provisions of Textile Commissioner’s notifications Annexs. 1 to 3. It is further alleged that on examination of the records submitted by the petitioner Company to the Textile Commissioner regarding their packing of yarn for civil consumption during the quarterly periods April/June, 1990, October/ December, 1990 and April/June, 1992, it was found that the petitioner company had not fulfilled its obligation for packing hank yarn during the said quarterly periods in compliance of the notifications Annexs. 1 to 3, inasmuch as there was a short fall of 30551,4558 and 20412 kgms. of yarn respectively. It appears that the petitioner company vide its letter No. BSL-NPO-90-3196 requested the Textile Commissioner for exemption from packing obligation in hank form, for the periods April/June, 1990 and October/December, 1990, and also for condonation of late submission of C Form for the said periods beyond one and half years but the same was rejected. The petitioner company also approached the Textile Ministry for exemption from packing of hank yarn but the same was also rejected. It is alleged that the petitioner company thus failed to comply with the directions contained in Annexs. 1 to 3 for the periods April/June, 1990, October/December, 1990, as also for the period April/June, 1992, and contravened the provisions of Clause 16 of the Order, 1986, and rendered itself liable for prosecution Under Section 3 read with Section 7 of the Act of 1955. The Asstt. Director Regional Office of the Textile Commissioner, Ahemedabad, therefore, lodged three written First Information Reports dt. 23-12-92, Annexs. 5, 6 and 7 respectively before the SHO., P. S. Banswara (respondent No. 2), whereupon Crime Nos. 22/93 dt. 7-1 -93, 43/93 and 44/93 dt. 22-1 -93 were registered at P. S., Banswara against the petitioners for the offence Under Section 3/7 of the Act of 1955 for violation of Clause 16(e) of the Order, 1986.
5. It appears that later on, the Director of the office of the Textile Commissioner vide his letter’ dated 26-8-93 Annex. 8 informed the petitioner company that the Textile Commissioner was pleased to condone the delay of seventeen days in filing C-form for the period April/June, 1992. A copy of Annex. 8 was also sent by the said Director to the Officer Incharge, Regional Office of the Textile Commissioner, Noida directing him to write to the concerned police authorities that on an appeal made by the petitioner company, the Textile Commissioner had condoned the delay in submitting the C-form for seventeen days for the period April/ June, 1992 and, therefore, he would not like to pursue the FIR registered vide letter Annex. 7. The Textile Commissioner vide its another letter dt. 28/ 29th December, 1993 (Annex. 9) also informed the petitioner company that its representation against the FIRs lodged by the Regional Office, Ahemedabad for non-fulfilment of hank yarn obligation for the period April/June, 1990 and October/December, 1990 was also considered under the present liberalised policy for the backlog of hank yarn packing obligation up to April/June, 1993 in the light of the Supreme Court judgment dated 17-3-93 and that necessary instructions in that regard have been issued to its Regional Office,, Noida. A copy of Annex. 9 was also sent to Regional Office of the Textile Commissioner from the office of the Textile Commissioner informing him that the Textile Commissioner was pleased to pass an order to write to the police authorities that the petitioner Co. had now fulfilled its backlog of hank yarn obligation in the light of the present liberalisation policy for fulilment of backlog of hank yarn obligation up to period April/June, 1993 and directed that Regional Office should write to the concerned police authorities that the Govt. was no more interested in pursuing the FIRs lodged vide letters Annexs. 5, 6 and 7. It was further directed that such a letter should be sent only after the petitioner company had fulfilled its obligation in respect of the balance quantity of 387 kgms of yarn. Thereupon, the Director, Regional Office of the Textile Commissioner, Noida vide his letters dt. 3rd June, 1994, Annexs. 10 and 11 informed the SHO, PS, Banswara accordingly and specifically mentioned therein that the petitioner Company had fulfilled its hank yarn obligation for the balance quantity due to it i. e. for 4558 kgms and 3055 kgms of yam by packing in hank form and that it had also submitted the C-Form fulfilling its hank yarn obligation in question and, as such, the Govt. was not interested in pursuing the said FIRs. The petitioners have, submitted that the Order 1986 has been repealed by the Textiles (Development and Regulation), Order, 1922, briefly, ‘the Order, 1992’ (Annex. 4) which has come into force from 7th Dec. 1992. The petitioners have, therefore prayed that in such circumstances, the continuance of investigation against them vide FIR Nos. 22, 43 and 44 of 1993 is not illegal and without jurisdiction and that to secure the ends of justice, those FIRs be quashed.
6. The respondents have not filed any reply.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutors at length and carefully perused the relevant record as also case diaries of the aforementioned FIRs.
8. Mr. B. L. Purohit has strenuously canvassed that the Order, 1986 wherein the drections issued thereunder vide Annexs. 1, 2 and 3 was a temporary Statute, and the same has been repealed by promulgation of the Order, 1992. According to him, in the Order, 1992, the Textile Commissioner has not been conferred with any power to issue the directions in writing to any manufacturer or class of manufacturers of cotton and woolen textiles regarding the manner of packing of yarn in hanks and cones or in any other form and in such proportion as he may consider necessary or expedient, while in the earlier Statute namely the Order, 1986 by virtue of Clause 16(1) (e), he was clothed with such a power and under that power, he had earlier issued directions wide notifications Annexs. 1, 2 and 3. According to him, the provisions of Clause 16(1) (e) of Order, 1986, have thus not been saved, keeping in view the provisions of Clause 2 of the Order, 1992, which deals with repeal and saving. His another limb of argument is that the petitioner company has already fulfilled its hank yarn obligation and the Textile Commissioner has considered its representation under the present liberalised policy for the backlog of packing of hank yarn obligation and also condoned the delay in filing the C-form; that the Govt. is also now not interested in pursuing those FIRs registered in pursuance of Annexs. 5, 6 and 7 and, therefore, further investigation and proceeding in those matters are not at all warranted, which deserve to be quashed.
9. The learned Public Prosecutor has asserted that since the petitioner company had failed to fulfil its hank yarn obligation in compliance of the directions issued by the Textile Commissioner vide Annexs. 1 to 3 it violated the provisions of Order, 1986 punishable Under Section 3/7 of the Act of 1955 and that subsequent fulfilment of the hank yarn obligation cannot absolve the petitioners from their liability for prosecution. He has, however, admitted that as per Annexs. 8, 9 10 and 11, the petitioner company has already fulfilled the backlog of its hank yarn obligation and that the Textile Commissioner is now not interested in pursuing the matter but contended that since the said offence is cognizable, the FIRs in question, should not be quashed.
10. I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions. Clause 16 of Order, 1986 reads as under:-
“16. (I) The Textile Commissioner, may, from time to time, issue directions in writing to any manufacturer or class of manufacturers or manufacturers generally, regarding:-
(a) the class or specifications of cloth or yarn which each manufacturer or class of manufacturers or manufacturers generally shall or shall hot manufacture;
(b) the maximum or minimum quantities of cloth or yarn which such manufacturer, or class of manufacturers or manufacturers generally shall manufacture during such period as may be specified in the Order;
(c) the maximum price ex-factory, wholesale or retail at which any class or specification of cloth of yarn may be sold; or
(d) the principles on which and the manner in which such maximum prices may be determined by a manufacturer; and
(e) the manner of packing of yarn in hanks, cones or in any other form and in such proportion as he may consider necessary or expedient:
Provided that in issuing any direction under this clause, the Textile Commissioner shall have regard to:-
(i) the demand for cloth or yarn;
(ii) the needs of the general public;
(iii) the special requirements of the industry for such cloth or yarn;
(iv) the capacity of the manufacturer or class of manufacturers or manufacturers generally, to manufacture or pack different descriptions or specifications of cloth or yarn; and
(v) the necessity to make available to the general public cloth for mass consumption.
(2) While is suing any direction under Sub-clause (1), the Textile Commissioner may also provide that such direction shall be with reference to the quantity of cloth or yarn packed by the manufacturer or class of manufacturers or manufacturers generally during the period specified in the direction.
(3) Every manufacturer, or class of manufacturer or manufacturers generally, to whom a direction has been issued shall comply with it.
(4) Where on an application made by any manufacturer or class of manufacturers or otherwise the Textile Commissioner is satisfied that any direction issued by him under this clause causes undue hardship or difficulty to any such manufacturer or class of manufacturers he may, by order and for reasons, to be recorded in writing, direct that the directions shall not apply or shall apply subject to such modifications, as may be specified in the order, to such manufacturer or class of manufacturers.”
11. Thus, under Clause 16(1) (e) of the Order, 1986, the Textile Commissioner had the authority to issue a direction regarding the manner of packing of yarn in hanks, cones or in any other form or in such proportion as he consider necessary and expedient. The notification dt. 29th March, 1990, Annex. 1 was issued by the Textile Commissioner in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by Clause 16 of the Order, 1986 and the directions contained therein were to come into force on 1 st April, 1990, and were to continue to be in force till 31st March, 1995. Those directions were in respect of the packing of yarn for civil consumption in hank form in each half yearly period commencing from April-Sept. 1990, period and in every subsequent half-yearly period in proportion of not less than fifty percent of total yarn packed by him during each half yearly period for civil consumption. The producer was also directed to file half yearly statistical return in Annex. 1 of the said notification. Thereafter, the Textile Commissioner issued the Hank Yarn Packing (Amendment) Notification, 1990 vide notification dt. 11-5-90, Annex. 2, wherein the half yearly period was replaced by the quarterly period and the proviso to Clause 2 was substituted. Again by notification dt. 17-5-90 (Annex. 3), Hank Yarn Packing (Amendment) Notification No. 2 of 1990 was promulgated and the pro forma of the statistical return was replaced/amended by Annexure appended thereto.
12. There is no dispute that in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Act of 1955, the Central Govt. made and promulgated the Textiles (Development & Regulation) Order, 1992, which came into force w. e. f. 7-12-92. Section 2 of Order, 1992 deals with repeal and saving, which runs as under:-
“2. Repeal and savings – The Textile (Control) Order, 1986 is hereby repealed:
Provided that any order made, notification issued, right accrued, penalty incurred or anything done or deemed to have been done under the Order so repealed shall be deemed to have been made, issued, accrued, incurred or done under the corresponding provisions of this Order.”
13. Clause 8 of the Order, 1992 inter alia deals with the powers of the Textile Commissioner like Clause 16 of Order 1986 but a comparison of both these clauses unmistakably reveals that no corresponding provision as was enumerated in Clause 16(1) (e) of Order, 1986 in respect of the manner of packing of yarn in hanks, cones or in any other form or in such proportion etc. has been not given to the Textile Commissioner under Clause 8 of Order, 1992. Therefore, in other words, there is no corresponding provision of Clause 16(1) (e) of Order, 1986 in the Textile Control Order, 1992. As per Clause 2 of the Order, 1992, the Textile Control Order, 1986 has been repealed. The proviso to the effect that any order made, notification issued, right accrued penalty incurred or anything done or deemed to have been done under the Order so repealed shall be deemed to have been made, issued, accrued, incurred or done under the corresponding provisions of Order. 1992 cannot be pressed into service in reviving the notifications Annexs. 1 to 3 because there is no such corresponding provision in the order, 1992. The notification Annex. 1 issued under Clause 16 of the Order, 1986 had the duration till March, 1995, but in the meanwhile, the Order, 1986 itself has been repealed w. e. f. 7-12-92. In such circumstances, notification Annex. 1 was like a temporary Statute.
14. The general rule in regard to a temporary Statute is that in the absence of special provision to the contrary, proceedings which are being taken against a person under the temporary statute will ipso facto terminate as soon as the statute expires. For this, I am fortified by the law laid down in S. Krishnan v. The State of Madras, . There is a difference between a temporary Statute and its expiry and permanent statute and its repeal as regards the consequence of such expiry and repeal respectively. It is no more res integra that Section 6 General Clauses Act, does not apply to the repeal of temporary Statute and to the automatic expiry of temporary ordinance. Since, there is no provision in Clause 8 of the Order, 1992 authorising the Textile Commissioner to issue notification or issue direction regarding the manner of packing yarn in hanks, cones or in any other form and in such proportions by virtue of Section 2 the notifications Annexs. 1 to 3 automatically came to an end and any investigation or proceedings commenced in pursuance of the violation of directions given in those notifications Annexs. 1 to 3 cannot proceed now.
15. In Jai Chand v. State of Rajasthan, (1986 WLN UC 376), proceedings, were pending against the petitioner Under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act for violation of the provisions of Clause 6 (a) of the Raj. Cattle Fodder (Sale of Stock & Prohibition of Export) Order, 1981 before the Sessions Judge Sirohi. The said Order of 1981 ceased to have force on 31st July, 1983 and thereafter a new Raj. Cattle Fodder (Sale of Stock and Prohibition of Export) Act, 1985 was promulgated. It was held that no action could be taken against the petitioner under the repealed law for violation of Clause 6(a) of the said Order of 1981 and criminal proceedings pending against him were qaushed by this Court invoking its inherent powers Under Section 482, Cr. P. C. Similar are the facts of the case on hand.
16. There is another aspect to be taken into consideration. There is no dispute that the petitioner company has already fulfilled its backlog obligation of hank yarn as is evident from Annexs. 9 to 11. The Textile Commissioner has also condoned the delay in filing the return for the period April/June 1992: The Textile Commissioner has also written to the police that the Govt. was not interested in pursuing the cases lodged in pursuance to FIRs Annexs. 5 to 7.
17. A similar situation arose in Century Spinning & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, , where prosecution was launched for violation of the Cotton Textile (Control) Order, 1948, which was punishable under the Essential Commodities Act. Clause 20 of the said Order, 1948 authorised the Textile Commissioner to issue directions in the matters detailed in that clause. Later on, the Textile Commissioner on the representation of the petitioner company issued Deviation Orders in favour of the said company and condoned the defaults commited by it. The magistrate before whom the prosecution was launched taking into consideration those circumstances held that the charges against the company were groundless and did not frame the charge and discharged the Company. The High Court however, set aside the Magistrate’s Order Allowing the special leave filed by the said company, the Apex Court vide para 21 (at p.337 of Cri LJ) observed as under:-
“21. We agree that the Police Authorities are not’ bound by the decision of the Textile Commissioner . not to take steps to prosecute the appellate company and even after the expiry of more than two years the police could technically initiate the present proceedings there being no legal bar. We are, however, inclined to think that the Textile Commissioner having felt satisfied that the appellant’s case fell within the notification of Nov. 2, 1964 as is clear from the Deviation Order actually issued by this office the appellant must be held not to have violated any provisions of the notification dt. Oct. 13,1964, with any guilty mind assuming there was technical violation thereof. We are unable to hold that there was any mens rea on the part of the appellant mill with the result that the prosecution for the offence charged must be considered to be groundless. In other words, there was no ground for presuming the appellant company to be guilty of the criminal, offence charged. The learned Chief Presidency. Magistrate, in our opinion rightly came to this conclusion on the material on the record and he did not exceed his jurisdiction in doing so. That, for an offence violating the Essential Commodities Act mens rea is necessary, has been decided by this Court in Nathulal’ s case (supra) and no argument to the contrary was addressed at the bar. It may be borne in mind that in this case, there is no question of any further evidence being led for bringing home the charge to the appellants. If on the existing material, there is no ground for presuming them to be guilty then there can hardly be any point in framing charges and going through the formality of a trial and then acquitting them. Such a course would merely result in unnecessary harassment to the appellants without serving the cause of justice.”
18. Therefore, for argument’s sake even assuming that by virtue of provisions of Clause 2 of Order, 1992, the criminal case registered against the petitioners has not ipso facto come to an end, still then keeping in view the fact that the petitioner company has already fulfilled its backlog obligation as was required under notifications Annexs. 1 to 3 and the delay in filing the return for the period April to June, 1992 has already been condoned by the Textile Commissioner, I am of the considered opinion that no useful purpose except putting the petitioners to unnecessary harassment and avoidable mental agony and financial burden, shall be served in continuing the investigation in the cases registered by the SHO, PS, Banswara (respondent No. 2) against them. Hence in my considered opinion, to secure the ends of justice, it is expedient and necessary to quash those FIRs as also the investigation conducted in those cases by invoking the inherent powers of this Court.
19. The up shot of the above discussion is that this petition is allowed and the FIR Nos. 22/93, 43/ 93 and 44/93 registered at Police Station, Banswara and investigation made thereon, are hereby quashed.