JUDGMENT Mulla, J. - These are five cases referred to this Court by the learned Sessions Judge at Shahjahanpur with an order of reference common to them all because in each case only one and the same question of law arises for consideration. Five dealers in cloth at Shahjahanpur, namely Chhotey, son of Nanhoon, Chhotey Lal, son of Ganga Ram, Brahma Swarup, Abdul Salam and Jagan Nath, were tried separately for an offence under Rule 81 (4) of the Defence of India Rules for having contravened Clause 14 (1) of the Cotton Cloth and Yarn (Control) Order of 1943. The trial in each case was summary. The prosecution alleged that the shops of these five dealers were visited by an Inspector of the Textile Deartment on different dates between the 1st and the 10th of January, 1946, which the result that a certain quantity of cloth, which in view of Clause 14 of the Cotten Cloth and Yarn (Control) Order of 1943 could not be legally possessed beyond the 31st of December, 1944, was recovered from each shop. In each case it was specifically stated in the complaint that the cloth recovered fell within the purview of Clause 14(1)(a) or (b) and could not, therefore, be legally possessed by any dealer after the 31st December, 1944. The Inspector, who visited the shop in each case, definitely stated in his evidence at the trial that the cloth recovered Was cloth which could not be legally possessed by any dealer after the 31st of December, 1944. The factum of the recovery of cloth in the circumstances alleged by the prosecution was not denied in any case, but the plea taken in each case was that the cloth had remaind unsold and no instructions had been issued by the authorities for disposal of such cloth. All the five cases resulted in conviction and the sentence imposed by the trying Magistrate in each case was a fine proportionate to the quantity of the cloth recovered and an order forfeiting the cloth in respect of which the offence had been committed. The sentences being nonappealable, the five convicted persons went up in revision before the learned Sessions Judge at Shahjahanpur who has made the reference now before us. The sentences being nonappealable, the five convicted persons went up in revision before the learned Sessions Judge at Shahjahanpur who has made the reference now before us. The learned Sessions Judge arrived at the conclusion that the Cotton Cloth and Yarn (Control) Order being defective, inasmuch as it did not provide for the disposal of cloth which could not be possessed by any dealer boyond the 31st December, 1944, Clause 14 of the said order involved a great hardshisp of the dealers concerned. He had accordingly recommended in each case that the sentence of fine should be reduced to a nominal sum of Rs. 5 and the order of forfeiture of cloth should be set aside. 2. Learned Counsel for the convicted persons have, however, strenuously contended in each case that this Court should record a finding of acquittal. The contention is based upon a decision of the High Court at Nagpur in the case of Provincial Government C. P. & Berar v. Shamsherali A I R 1946 Nag. 249. The learned Judges who decided that case held that Clause 15A of the order overrides Cl. 14 thereof. The possession of undisposed cloth by the dealers after 31st December 1944 was permitted under Cl. 15A of the order. Clause 14 is incomplete and unworkable in so far as no provision has been made for the disposal of cloth lying unsold with the dealers after 31st December 1944. Dealers therefore had lawful excuse for possession of the cloth after 31st December, 1944, and hence they had not contravened Cl. 14 of the order and were not punishable under Rule 81 (4), Defence of India Rules. 3. This view has been adopted by a Division Bench of the Chief Court at Oudh in the case of Murli Dhar v. Emperor 1946 A W R 97) reported in 1946, A. W. R. CC 97, Learned Counsel have also referred us to two decisions of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Criminal Revision No. 513 of 1946 and Criminal Revision No. 602 of 1946, though from a perusal of the judgments in those two cases we find that the decision turned principally upon the trial having been vitited by the fact that it had been held summarily without any application in that behalf having been made by the prosecution as contemplated by Rule 13) of the Defence of India Rules. We find further that the learned Judge had before him in those cases a fact of material importance which is not to be found in the cases before us and that is that a communication had been sent to the Textile Commissioner by the Kapra Conmittee of which the accused were members asking for instructions about the disposal of the cloth which could not be possessed after the 31st of December, 1944, and no reply had been received from the Textile Commissoner. On the other hand we have a decision of another learned Judge of this Court in Criminal References Nos. 1229 to 1252 of 1945 in which a contrary view has been taken and the Crown relies on that decision. 4. Thus the only question we hate to consider in the cases now before us is: Whether the view taken by the Nagpur High Court is based upon a correct interpretation of clauses 14 and 15A of the Cotton Cloth and Yarn (Control) Order, 1943. At the material period with which we are concerned in these cases, namely, the period between the 1st and the 10th of January, 1945, the relevant portion of Clause 14 of the order stood as follows: 14 (1) No dealer shall, after the 81st December 1944, buy or sell or have in his possession- (a) any cloth or yarn manufactured in India before the 1st August, 1943 ; (b) any cloth of yarn manufactured in India and packed after the 31st July 1943 and before the 1st January 1944. (2) No manufacturer or dealer shall buy or sell or have in his possession any cloth or yarn, whether manufactured in India or elsewhere, other than that referred to in subclause (1), after the expiration of twelve months from the last day of the month marked on the cloth or yarn in accordance with the directions of the Textile Commissioner under Clause 10 ; and no person shall buy or sell or have in his possession any such cloth or yarn in unopened bales or cases alter the expiration of six months from the said date. 5. Clause 14 in this form was introduced by Notification No. T. B, (1) 29/44, dated the 4th of November, 1944. In order to appreciate the scope and effect of this clause correctly we think it is necessary to consider the previous history of the legislation. 5. Clause 14 in this form was introduced by Notification No. T. B, (1) 29/44, dated the 4th of November, 1944. In order to appreciate the scope and effect of this clause correctly we think it is necessary to consider the previous history of the legislation. The Cotton Cloth and Yarn (Control) Order was first promulgated on the 17th of June, 1943, by Notification No, 34-Tex. (l)/43. The object of the Government in promulgating the order obviously was to control the production and sale of cloth. The supply of cloth was limited and the demand for it was very heavy. It was, therefore, necessary for the Government to ensure a fair distribution of the commodity at a reasonable price. Clause 14 of the order, as it stood originally, was in the following terms: 14 (1) No cloth or yarn manufactured before the 1st August 1943, shall remain in full bales after the 31st August 1943, and all such cloth and yarn shall be finally disposed of by retail sale not later than 31st October 1943. (2) No person shall alter the 31st October, 1943, offer for sale cloth or yarn which has not been marked under Sub-clause (1) of Clause 13, provided that on application made for sufficient reasons to him in this behalf the Textile Commissioner or such other person as may be Specified by him under Clause 16 may extend in any particular case the provisions specified in the Sub-section. 6. It will be noticed that cloth was divided into two categories, one being cloth manufactured before the 1st of August 1943, and the other being cloth manufactured after that date With regard to the former the order provided that it shall be finally disposed of by retail sale not later than 31st of October, 1943. With regard to the latter it was provided that it shall be marked by the manufacturer and further that no cloth which had not been marked was to be offered for sale after the 31st of October, 1943. Clause 13 of the order laid down that after the 31st of July, 1943, all cloth and yarn produced by a manufacturer shall be marked by him with the date of packing in such manner as may be specified by the Textile Commissioner under Clause 10. The manner of this marking was prescribed by Notification No. 34-Tex. (15)/43, dated the 7th of July, 1943. The manner of this marking was prescribed by Notification No. 34-Tex. (15)/43, dated the 7th of July, 1943. With regard to marked cloth it was further provided that all such cloth shall be finally disposed of by retail sale within six months of the date of packing. The object behind these provisions manifestly was to prevent the hoarding of cloth by dealers for the purpose of making unduly large profits at the expense of the consumers. There was no provision in Clause 14 as it originally stood authorising the Textile Commissioner to allow possession and disposal of cloth beyond the dates fixed in the clause itself. This authority was however, given to the Textile Commissioner by amendment of Clause 14 by Notification No. 34-Tex. (1)43, dated the 14th of August, 1943. On the 14th of November, 1943, Clause 14 was further amended by Notification No. 34-Tex. A (1) 12/43 as follows: 14(1) No cloth (other than hand-loom cloth) or yarn manufactured before the 1st August, 1943 shall, unless expressly authorised by the Textile Commisiioner- (a) be kept by any person in unopened bales or cases after the 31st August, 1943 ; (b) be kept undisposed of by any dealer, or by any person holding on behalf of a dealer, after the 31st December 1943. (2) No cloth or yarn marked with the date of packing under the provisions of this order shall, unless expressly authorised by the Textile Commissioner,- (a) be kept by any person in unopened bales, or cases for more than three months after that date: (b) be kept undisposed of by any dealer, or by any person holding on behalf of a dealer, for more than six months after that date. 7. It will be noticed that the time limit for the final disposal of cloth manufactured before the 1st of August, 1943, was now extended by two months. Other important amendments were also made by the same Notification. In Clause 11 the Textitle Commissioner was given power to issue directions from time to time in writing to any manufacturer regarding the classes or specifications of cloth or yarn and the maximum or minimum quantities thereof which he shall or shall not manufacture. Clause 12 provided that no manufacturer or dealer shall without sufficient cause, refuse to sell cloth or yarn to any person. Clause 12 provided that no manufacturer or dealer shall without sufficient cause, refuse to sell cloth or yarn to any person. Clause 18 laid down that no dealer or other person not being a manufacturer shall at any time bold stocks of cloth or yarn in excess of his normal requirements. The object behind all these provision obviously was to present any hoarding of cloth and to ensure its speedy and fair distribution. On the 30th of December, 1943, there was another Notification No. 34-Tex. A 15/43 which provided that the cloth manufactured before the 1st of August, 1943, could be kept by dealers only if such cloth was stamped in accordance with the directions issued in that behalf by the Provincial Government. Clause 14, as it stood after amendment by Notification No. 34-Tex. A (1) 12/43, dated the 24th of November, 1943 held the field until the 4th of November, 1944, when it was further amended by Notification No. T. B. (1) 29/44 to which reference has already been made above. In the meantime on the 22nd of January, 1944, the Government made a fresh Notification No. 34-Tex. A (1) 13/43 by which they introduced a new Clause 15A in the order. This Clause 15A runs as follows: 15A. Notwithstanding anything contained in clauses 14 (1) (b) and 14 (2) (b), cloth or yarn not disposed of within the period specified in those clauses may be kept and sold by a dealer subject to the conditions notified in this behalf by the Textile Commissioner prescribing the special markings to be made on such cloth or yarn, the agency by which the marking shall be made and the fee payable for such marking: Provided, however, that no such cloth or yarn shall be kept undisposed of by any dealer or by any person holding on behalf of a dealer, for more than sis months after the date of such marking. 8. This new clause governed both categories of cloth, that is, cloth manufactured befor the 1st August, 1943, and cloth manufactured after that date. It laid down that all cloth was thereafter to be marked with the special marking prescribed by the Textile Commissioner. It did not, however, fix any time limit for the keeping and disposal of cloth. 8. This new clause governed both categories of cloth, that is, cloth manufactured befor the 1st August, 1943, and cloth manufactured after that date. It laid down that all cloth was thereafter to be marked with the special marking prescribed by the Textile Commissioner. It did not, however, fix any time limit for the keeping and disposal of cloth. This was done by two Notifications, one dated the 26th of February, 1944, (T. C. (4) 44) and the other dated the 29th of April, 1944, (T. C). (4) 44). By these Notifications all dealers and persons holding on behalf of dealers were authorised to keep cloth until the 30th of June, 1944. The special markings were prescribed by the Textile Commissioner by Notification No. T. C. (6) 2/44, dated the 27th of January, 1944. This Notification was complimentary to N Notification No. 34-Tex. A (1) 13/43, dated the 22nd of January, 1944, by which the new Clause 15A was introduced for the first time. This Notification laid down the conditions subject to which cloth not disposed of within the period specified in clauses 14 (1) (b) and 14 (2) (b) could be kept and sold by a dealer and it superseded Notification No. 34-Tex. A 15/43, dated the 30th of December, 1943, which provided that cloth manufactured before the 1st of August, 1943, was to be stamped in accordance with the directions issued by the Provincial Government. So far the time limit for the keeping and disposal of all cloth whether manufactured before the 1st of August 1943, or thereafter was the 30th of June, 1944. This was, however, extended by another six months by Notification No. T. C. (4) 7/44, dated the 22nd of May 1944, which runs as follows: In exercise of the powers conferred on me by clauses 14 (2) and 15 of he Cotton Cloth and Yarn (Control) Order, 1943, I hereby authorise all dealers and persons holding on behalf of dealers to keep- (i) Cloth or yern packed between August, 1943, and April, 1944. (ii) Cloth manufactured before August, 1943, and marked between January and April, 1944, in the manner prescribed by the Textile Commissioner's notification No. T. C (6) 2-44, dated the 27th January, 1944, till the 31st December, 1944. 9. It will be noticed that so far there was no specific prohibition to possess cloth after the 31st of December, 1944. (ii) Cloth manufactured before August, 1943, and marked between January and April, 1944, in the manner prescribed by the Textile Commissioner's notification No. T. C (6) 2-44, dated the 27th January, 1944, till the 31st December, 1944. 9. It will be noticed that so far there was no specific prohibition to possess cloth after the 31st of December, 1944. This prohibition was first made by Notification No. T. B. (1) 29-44, dated the 4th of November, 1944, by means of an amendment of Section 14. In that Notification Clause 14 clearly and categorically laid down that no dealer shall, after the 31st of December, 1944, buy or sell or have in his possession-(a) any cloth or yarn manufactured in India before the 1st of August, 1943 and (b) any cloth or yarn manufactured in India and packed after the 31st of July, 1943, and before the 1st of January, 1944. It would thus appear that the position at the matrial period with which we are concerned in these cases was that Clause 14 had been emended by Notification No. T. B. (1) 29-44, dated the 4th of November, 1944, so as to make the mere possession of cloth after the 31st of December, 1944, an offence. Clause 15A still stood in the form in which it was introduced by Notification No. 34-Tex, A (1) 13/43, dated the 22nd of January, 1944. In that from Clause 15A could not possibly have any application to Clause 14 as it had been amended by Notification No T. B. (1) 29-44, dated the 4th of November, 1944, 15A referred to clauses 14 (1) (b) and 14 (2) (b), though there was no (2) (b) in lcause 14 after it had been amended on the 4th of November, 1944. Again, Clause 14 (1) (b) referred to the Clause 15A provided that no cloth or yarn manufactured before the 1st of August, 1943, shall, unless expressly authorised by the Textile Commissioner, be kept undisposed of by any dealer or by any person holding on behalf of a dealer after the 31st of December, 1943, but in the meantime the time limit for keeping and disposing of cloth had been extended by several Notifications, as stated above, to the 31st of December, 1944. After the amendment of Clause 14 on the 4th of November, 1944, Clause 15A could have no application to it and was indeed a dead letter. Clause 15A was subsequently amended by Notification No. T. B. (1) 33-45, dated the 13th of January, 1945, which provided that in Clause 15A for the word, figures and letter "14 (1) (b)and 14 (2) (b)" the word and figures "14 (1) and 14 (2)" should be substituted. We are not, however, concerned with this amendment because it was subsequent to the material period in the cases before us. At that period Clause 14 stood in its amended form after the 4th of November, 1944, and laid down a clear and categorical prohibition that no dealer shall, after the 31st of December, 1944, but or sell or have in his possession (a) any cloth or yarn manufactured in India before the 1st August, 1943, and (b) any cloth or yarn manufactured in India and packed after the 31st July, 1943, and before the 1st January, 1944. Its provisions could not be governed or controlled by Clause 15A prior to its amendment on the 13th of January, 1945. 10. It is in the light of these facts that we have to determine the question: Whether the mere possession of cloth falling within the Categories referred to in Clause 14 after its amendment on the 4th of November, 1944, was or was not an offence? We have no doubt that the answer to the above question must be in the affirmative Possession of cloth falling within the categories referred to in Clause 14(1)(a) and (b) after the 31st Dacember, 1944, was a clear contravention of the prohibition laid(sic) down by the clause and was, therefore, an offence punishable under Rule 81 (4) of the Defence of India Rules. With due respect to the learned Judges of the Nagpur High Court we are unable to agree with the contrary view taken by them. They were also concerned with possession of cloth falling within the categories referred to in Clause 14 between the 1st and the 11th of January, 1945, but it appears that they had taken into consideration Clause 15A, as it was amended oh the 13th of January, 1945, as a provision which governed and controlled Clause 14. They were also concerned with possession of cloth falling within the categories referred to in Clause 14 between the 1st and the 11th of January, 1945, but it appears that they had taken into consideration Clause 15A, as it was amended oh the 13th of January, 1945, as a provision which governed and controlled Clause 14. Apart from this, we are unable to agree with the view that Clause 15A in any form could govern the provisions of Clause 14. In our judgment Clause 15A can only be considered as a proviso to Clause 14 and an accused person, who claims the benefit of that proviso, must bring his case clearly within its purview by establishing that he had fulfilled the conditions prescribed by the Textile Commissioner under which alone possession of cloth was permissible in spite of the provisions of Clause 14. As we have already pointed out, Clause 15A, as it stood at the material period, was in fact a dead letter and could not possibly apply to Clause 14 after its amendment on the 4th of November, 1944, much less govern or control its provisions. Again, we are unable to accept the view that Clause 15A should be read if it consisted of two parts quite independent of each other, one permitting possession beyond the time limit prescribed by Clause 14 and the other providing for certain conditions being laid down for such possession by the Textile Commissioner, In our judgment the clause must be read as a whole and cannot be anything more than a proviso to Clause 14. For the purpose of deciding the cases before us it is not necessary for us to consider the effect of Clause 15A alter its amendment on this 13th of January, 1945, and its relation to Clause 14 as it stands after its amendment on the 4th of November, 1944. For the purpose of deciding the cases before us it is not necessary for us to consider the effect of Clause 15A alter its amendment on this 13th of January, 1945, and its relation to Clause 14 as it stands after its amendment on the 4th of November, 1944. Again, we find that the learned Judges of the Nagpur High Court were of the opinion that no breach of the provisions of Clause 14 can amount to a contravention entailing the penalty provided by Rule 81 (4) of the Defence of India Rules until it is established that the contravention falls within the definition of that term in Rule 5 of the Defence of India Rules which runs as follows: If any person to whom any provision of these Rules relates, or to whom any order made in pursuance of these rules is addressed or relates, or who is in occupation, possession or control of any land, building, vehicle, vessel or other thing to which such provision relates, or in respect of which such order is made- (a) falls without lawful authority or excuse, himself, or in respect of any land, building, vehicle, vessel or other thing of which he is in occupation, possession or control, to comply, or to secure compliance, with such provision or order, or (b) evades, or attempts to evade, by any means such provision, or order,- he shall be deemed to have contravened such provision or order; and in these rules the expression "contravention" with its grammatical variations includes any such failure, evasion or attempt to evade. 12. Having referred to this rule, they observed in their judgment as follows: The failure to comply or to secure compliance with Cl. 14 of the order by the dealers without lawful excuse is contravention of the order which is made punishable and not a mere breach of Clause 14 of the order. 13. With due respect to the learned Judges we are unable to agree with that view. In our judgment Rule 5 of the Defence of India Rules is intended to enlarge the scope of contravention and not to limit or curtail it. Rule 5 is intended to widen the field of contravention by including within its ambit an act which, though it may not be a prima facie breach of any provision, is yet an evasion of or an attempt to evade that provision. Rule 5 is intended to widen the field of contravention by including within its ambit an act which, though it may not be a prima facie breach of any provision, is yet an evasion of or an attempt to evade that provision. The Rule has no application to an act which is a clear and direct breach of a prohibitory provision. It is important to note that Rule 5 after referring to certain acts says that the person committing those acts "shall be deemed to have contravened such provision or order". Where an act is a clear and direct breach of a prohibitory provision there is no question as to whether it has to be deemed to be a contravention of that provision. 14. For the reasons given above we hold that the five persons in whose favour the references have been made by the learned Sessiones Judge, were rightly convicted under Rule 81 (4) of the Defence of India Rules for contravention of the prohibitory provision in clause 14 of the Cotton Cloth and Yarn (Control) Order, 1943. With regard to sentence it may no doubt be said on the one hand that there is a defect in the order, inasmuch as it does not specifically lay down any provisions for the possession and disposal of cloth after this time limit prescribed by Clause 14 and this involves hardship on the dealers who may have cloth in their possession which they were unable to dispose of within the prescribed time limit. On the other hand it may be urged, perhaps with greater reason, that when Clause 14 was amended on the 4th of November, 1944, so that the possession of cloth beyond the 31st of December, 1944, was made an offence, the dealers must have realised that they had to get rid of all cloth within that time limit or else to apply to the proper authorities for instructions regarding its disposal after the prescribed time limit. They had an ample notice of about two months for taking necessary steps. They had an ample notice of about two months for taking necessary steps. It may also be pointed out that, having regard to the scarcity of cloth and the heavy demand for it, it was fair on the part of the Government to presume that there will be no cloth left in the possession of the dealers after the prescribed time limit except perhaps in rare cases, provided the dealers honestly tried to sell the cloth and not to hoard it with the object of making undue profits. The time limit for possession and disposal of cloth had been extended from time to time and it was, therefore, reasonably expected that there will be no cloth left undisposed of after the prescribed time limit, In view of all the circumstances, however, we are inclined to accept the recommendation of the learned Sessions Judge that jonly mominal fines should be imposed in these cases. We therefore, reduce the sentence of fine imposed in each case to the nominal amount of Rs. 5. With regard to the order of forfeiture passed in respect of the cloth which was the subject of the offence we consider it advisable to leave the matter to the authorities concerned. They may, if they so choose, return the cloth to the dealers concerned and allow them to possess and sell that cloth under certain prescribed conditions.