JUDGMENT Roxburgh, J. - The Petitioner in this case, Kunjalal Saha is being tried for an alleged contravention of the Bengal Cotton Cloth and Yarn Control Order, 1945, in that he sold a piece of sari for Rs. 6 against the controlled price of Rs. 3-10-0. The accused was originally tried for a contravention of the (Central) Cotton Cloth and Yarn Control Order, 1943. On the 3rd of January, 1946, the Court Sub-Inspector filed a petition asking for with-Criminal Revision No. 816 of 1946 drawal of the case on the ground of want of sanction. The Magistrate noted: There is a technical defect. The accused is acquitted under sec. 494 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On the 29th of January the Court Sub-Inspector filed a petition requesting that the case he revived and the accused tried for a contravention of cl. 17 (i) of the Bengal Cotton Cloth and Yarn Control Order, 1943. Accordingly the case was revived and is now proceeding. The accused has moved this Court for the proceedings to be quashed. 2. In the original case a charge sheet was submitted for a contravention of cl. 12 of the Cotton Cloth and Yarn Control Order, 1943, on the 6th of February, 1945, the accused having been produced before the Court on the 25th of January. Sanction of the Local Government was given on the 27th of February, 1945. In view of the decision of the Federal Court in the case of Basdeo Agarwalla v. Emperor (1045) 46 C. W. N. 60. the prosecution realised that the proceedings were bad although no evidence had been recorded in the case because sanction was received after cognizance had purported to be taken. All that was necessary in the circumstances was to drop those proceeding:, as bad for want of jurisdiction and then to have a fresh challan submitted on the basis of the sanction already granted and for fresh proceedings to be taken up. The prosecution instead had purported to withdraw the case. An order of acquittal was passed in error by the trial Magistrate. Then later, quite unnecessarily it was decided to proceed in respect of the same offence as a breach of the Bengal Cotton Cloth and Yarn Control Order. The prosecution instead had purported to withdraw the case. An order of acquittal was passed in error by the trial Magistrate. Then later, quite unnecessarily it was decided to proceed in respect of the same offence as a breach of the Bengal Cotton Cloth and Yarn Control Order. In this respect the prosecution have, so to speak, leaped from the frying pan into the fire, for in our opinion sanction is also necessary under the latter Order. 3. This question has been considered in the case of Kapildeo Pandey v. Emperor I. L. R. (1945) Pat. 257. with reference to a similar matter under the Bihar Order. A reference to cl. 17 (2) of the Bengal Order shows, when read with the Central Order, that what has been done in that clause is to repeat that something which is a contravention of the Central Order will be a contravention of the Bengal Order. Cl. 12 (1) of the Central Order forbids " manufacturers " or " dealers " from selling or offering to sell any cloth or yarn at a price higher than the maximum fixed under cl. 10 or cl. 10B (a) of the Central Order. Cl. 17 (2) of the Bengal Order forbids any "person" from selling or offering to sell cloth or yarn at a price higher than the maximum fixed wider the Central Order. Except in so far as a " person" under the Bengal Order is a wider term than " manufacturer" or " dealer " under the Central Order it is thus a mere repetition of the case in cl. 12 (1) of the Central Order in so far as it refers to maximum price fixed under cl. 10 of that Order. 4. The result is that an act which is already an offence under the Central Order and punishable under Rule 81 (4) of the Defence of India Rules is merely again asserted also to be an offence under the Bengal Order punishable under the same provision of the Defence of India Rules. Under cl. 23 of the Central Order sanction for prosecution in respect of such act is required. No sanction is required for prosecution in respect of contraventions of the Bengal Order. Under cl. 23 of the Central Order sanction for prosecution in respect of such act is required. No sanction is required for prosecution in respect of contraventions of the Bengal Order. We think that there was no intention in the Bengal Order in any way to amend or repeal the Central Order and in particular to remove the requirements of sanction for prosecution. In our opinion, prosecution in respect of any acts which are contraventions of the Central Order also falling as contraventions of cl. 17 (2) of the Bengal Order must still require sanction. 5. The result is that the present proceedings in respect of a contravention of cl. 17 of the Bengal Order are bad for want of sanction and must be quashed. The prosecution, if so advised, are at liberty to proceed on the basis of the original sanction of the 23rd of February, 1945, but in order to avoid any possible conflict with the decision in the case cited [Basdeo Agarwalla v. Emperor (1945) 49 C. W. N. 60.], a fresh charge sheet should first be submitted to the Court on which it may proceed to take cognizance. We are not to be taken as in any way expressing any opinion that the proceedings should continue. Chakravrtti, J. I agree.