JUDGMENT Grhulam Hasan and Madeley, JJ. - This is an application in revision by one Murlidhar, a cloth seller, against a conviction for contravening Clause 14 of the Government of India Cotton Cloth and Yarn Control Order as amended by the Government of India Notification No. T.S. (1) 29/41- dated November, 1944. 2. The facts are that 54 bundles of Yarn of 10 lbs. each were found in possession of the applicant in the morning of the 1st January 1945. The period for retention of these had expired on midnight 31-12-1944/ 1-1-1945. The conviction is u/s 8l(4), Defence of India Rules, and the applicant has been fined Rs. 50 and the cloth has been confiscated. He went in revision to the Sessions Judge who dismissed the application. He then filed a revision application in this Court and the case coming up before the Hon'ble Chief Judge, was referred to a Bench. 3. The trial was a summary one. All the details required by Section 263 Code of Criminal Procedure. were not filled in and some other formal defects have been pointed out by the applicant's Learned Counsel. In only one respect however can the applicant be said to have been prejudiced in his trial. It is said that the accused pleaded guilty to the charge, but his statement "that he had no time to bring land deposit the yarn in the Supply Office" seems to negative this. It seems that be admitted the facts alleged by the prosecution but pleaded that in the circumstances he was not guilty. 4. We proceed to examine the case on the merits. 5. The applicant relies upon Provincial Government, C.P. and Berar v. Shamsherali AIR 1946 Nag. 249. Clause 15A of the Order overrides Clause 14 thereof. The possesion of undisposed cloth by the dealears after 31st December 1944 was permitted under Clause 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 3lst December, 1944. Dealers therefore had lawful excuse for possession of the cloth after 31st December. 1944 and hence they had not contravened Clause 14 of the Order and were not punishable under Rule 81(4), Defence of India Rules. 6. Dealers therefore had lawful excuse for possession of the cloth after 31st December. 1944 and hence they had not contravened Clause 14 of the Order and were not punishable under Rule 81(4), Defence of India Rules. 6. The position taken up by the learned Government Advocate is that whereas a dealer was lawfully entitled to keep the stock which belonged to him up to midnight on the 31st December 1944, he was guilty of an offence if lie kept it any longer. In other words lawful possession became unlawful possession on the stroke of midnight. The dealer had up to that time to dispose of his cloth by sale after that by hook or by crook he moust divest himself of that possession or suffer the consequence. If this is the proper interpretation of the rule, it is obviously a very bard one, for it is difficult to say that the dealer was to do with the stock which remained in his hand for no fault of. his own, but merely because he had been unable to sell it. No provision was made for his keeping it in his possession in any circumstances and no provision was made for his depositing it with any authority. It seems very doubtful whether depositing the cloth in such circumstances that he could take it back again would have had the legal effect of divesting him of its possession and it would therefore seem that destruction or out and out gift to another was his only course. But we feel quite certain that this was not the intention of the rule making authority. 7. The history of these rules is given in the judgment of the Nagpur High Court and we quote the first part thereof. In order to decide the question involved in these cases it is necessary to set out Clause 14, Cotton Cloth and Yarn (Control) Order, 1943 as it stood originally and as it was after successive amendments. On 17th June 1943 when the Cotton. Cloth and Yarn (Control) Order was made, C1. 14 was in these terms: 14(1) and all such cloth...shall be finally disposed of by retail sale not later than 31s October 1943. On 17th June 1943 when the Cotton. Cloth and Yarn (Control) Order was made, C1. 14 was in these terms: 14(1) and all such cloth...shall be finally disposed of by retail sale not later than 31s October 1943. (2) No person shall, after 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 this sub-clause. The clause did not prohibit possession of cloth after 31st October 1943. It merely, enjoined that the cloth should be finally disposed of by retail sale not later than 31st October 1943. It did not provide what was to happen if the cloth was left undisposed of after that date. Sale of cloth depends upon so many factors which are beyond the control of a dealer and it may not be possible for him to sell all the cloth in his possession by a particular date. This clause was replaced by a new clause on 2lth November 1943 by Notification No. 34 TEx. A(l)12/ 34 which was in these terms. 8. Thereafter we think it will be clearer to give the whole rule made on the 24th November 1943. 14(1) No cloth (other than handloom cloth) or yarn manufactured before August 1, 1943 shall, unless expressly authorized by the Textile Commissioner "(a) be kept by any person in unopened bales or cases after August 31, 1943. (b) kept undisposed of by any dealer or by any person holding on behalf of a dealer, after December 31, 1943. "(2) No cloth or yarn marked with the dale of packing under the provision of this order shall unless expressly authorized by the Textile Commissioner "(a) be kept by any person in unopened bales or cases for more than six 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 twelve months alter that date. 10. By notification No. 34 TEx. "(b) be kept undisposed of by any dealer, or by any person holding on behalf of a dealer, for more than twelve months alter that date. 10. By notification No. 34 TEx. A (1) 13/43 dated 22nd January 1944 a new Clause 15A was inserted 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, low ever that no such cloth or yarn shall be kept us discsed of by any dealer, or by any person folding on behalf of a dealer for more than 6 months alter the date of such marking. 11. On the 27th January 1944 the Textile Commissioner made rules under Clause 15 (A) read with Clause (10) of the Control Order. We quote the relevant passage. No. T.C. (6) 2/44 In exercise of the powers conferred on me by clauses 10 and 16A of the Cotton Cloth and Yarn (Control) Order, 1943 and in supersession of my notification No. 34-TEx. A 15/43, dated 30th November 1943 I hereby notify the following conditions, subject to which cloth or yarn not disposed of within the period specified in Clauses 14(1)(b) and 14(2)(b) of the said order may be kept and sold by a dealer, namely: (1) such cloth on yarn as aforesaid shall not be kept or sold unless it bears the special marking stamped or impressed upon it by the Provincial Government which has seized it or to which it has been surrendered for the purpose of such marking. 12. Two things may be noted. There is reference to the period mentioned in 14 (1) (b) and 14 (2) (b), and there is provision for surrender to the Provincial Government for making. 13. By notification T.B. (1) 29/44 dated 4th November 1944 a new Clause 14 was substituted: 14.-(1) No dealer shall, after the 31st December 1944 buy or sell or have in possession. (a) any cloth or yarn manufactured in India before the 1st August, 1943. 13. By notification T.B. (1) 29/44 dated 4th November 1944 a new Clause 14 was substituted: 14.-(1) No dealer shall, after the 31st December 1944 buy or sell or have in possession. (a) any cloth or yarn manufactured in India before the 1st August, 1943. (b) any cloth or yarn manufactured in India and packed after the 31st July 1843 and before the 1st January 1944. "(2) No manufacturer or dealer shall buy or fell or have in his possession any cloth or yarn whether manufactured in India or elsewhere other than that referred to in Sub-clause (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 after the expiration of six months from the said date. (3) For the purposes of this clause. (i) Cloth or yarn shall be deemed to be in the possession of a person when it is held on behalf of that person by another person ; (ii) a bale or case shall be deemed to be unopened if the hoops of other bindings and all outer covering have not been removed. (iii) Cloth or yarn of Indian manufacture not bearing any marking in accordance with the directions of the Textile Commissioner under Clause 10 shall unless the contrary is proved be deemed to have been manufactured in India before August 1, 1943. "(4) Nothing in this clause shall apply to handloom cloth. 14. Thereafter (but we have been unable to ascertain the date) Clause 15A was amended. "In Clause 15A for the figures and words 14 (1) (b)' and 14 (2) (b)' read 14 (1)' and 14 (2)" for since in the new Clause 14 no period is specified in 14(1)(b) and there is no 14(2)(b), it is obvious that the alteration was necessary to make Clause 15A applicable to the new Clause 14. But though this amendment of Clause 15A was made, there was no amendment of No. T.C. (6) 2/44 which still related to the period specified in Clauses 14(1)(b) and 14(2)(b) and was therefore inapplicable to this rules 14 and 15A as amended. But though this amendment of Clause 15A was made, there was no amendment of No. T.C. (6) 2/44 which still related to the period specified in Clauses 14(1)(b) and 14(2)(b) and was therefore inapplicable to this rules 14 and 15A as amended. Nor was any new notification issued under clauses 10 and 15A specifying under what conditions the cloth could be kept. The dealers were therefore left in an impossible position for they could not keep the cloth themselves nor could they hand it over to any one to keep on their behalf on account of Clause 14(3)(i). It may be noted moreover that they had only from the 14th November 1944 till the 31st December 1945 to dispose of their stocks. 15. In our opinion, and we say it with respect there was no oversight on the part of the rule making authority and it was probably intended by the consequential amendment of Clause 15A to make No. T.C. (6) 2/44 dated 27th January 1944 applicable to the new Rule 14. The amendment however does not have that effect. We think that clauses 14 and 15A are unworkable, and we agree with the Hon'ble High Court at Nagpur that in these circumstances the applicant had lawful excuse for being in possession of the cloth on the 1st January 1945. We therefore allow this revision application and set aside the conviction and sentence passed upon the applicant. The line, if paid, will be refunded. The order of confiscation is also set aside.