Law:

Section:

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of East Pakistan, Dacca, dated the 25th November 1969, in Petition No. 478 of 1967). East Pakistan (Control of Essential Commodities)---- - Ordi nance (X of 1956), East Pakistan (Control of Essential Commodities) Act (I of 1956), East Pakistan Foodstuffs Price Control and Anti Hoarding Order, 1953 and Government Notification No. 10754-FD, dated 24-11-56-Orders made or deemed made under repealed East Pakistan (Control of Essential Commodities) Ordinance (X of 1956)-Saved by East Pakistan (Control of Essential Commodities) Act (I of 1956)-Notification No. 10754-FD, dated 24-11-56 issued under East Pakistan Foodstuffs Price Control and Anti-Hoarding order, 1953-Conlznued to remain operative- Contravention of any notified order in respect of foodstuff's made under East Pakistan (Control of .Essential Commodities) Act (1 of 1956)-Triable by Special Magistrate appointed under East Pakistan Food (Special Courts) Act (X of 1956). Date of hearing : 18th June 1970. JUDGEMENT HAMOODUR RAHMAN. J.-The petitioner was triad along with one, Haralal, for being in possession of Joshi rice (a ration commodity) in excess of tic quantity permitted to be held under a ration card in violation of Notification No. 10754 F. D., dated the 24th November 1956, which is an offence punishable under section 6 of the East Pakistan Food (Special Courts) Act, 1956 (X of t 956). The trial was held by a Special Magistrate under the said Act. He convicted him and sentenced him to 20 months' rigorous imprisonment. Since no appeal lay from this order of the Special Magistrate, he invoked the special jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 98 of the Constitution of 1962, but the High Court refused to interfere, as, in its view, this was not a case of no evidence. The petitioner now seeks special leave to appeal. Learned counsel appearing on his behalf has sought to contend that a violation of the notified order mentioned in the charge could not be punished under section 6 of Act X of 1956, but it appears that this argument has been made under a misconception. The notified order was made in exercise of the powers given by the East…