JUDGMENT V.G. Oak, J. - This revision application arises out of a prosecution under the Essential Supplies Act and U.P. Salt Control Order. According to the prosecution. Remeshwar Prasad applicant brought 60 bags of salt from district Jaunpur to district Ballia in August 1953, without any permission from the District Magistrate of Ballia. Further, Remeshwar Prasad sold eight out of the 60 bags of salt in district Ballia without any licence or permission for the purpose from the District Magistrate of Ballia. Rameshwar Prasad was, therefore, prosecuted for unlawful import and sale of salt. The accused admitted the facts as alleged by the prosecution. He pleaded that he was not aware that he was contravening any provision of law in importing or selling the salt. The explanation offered by the accused was not accepted by the learned Magistrate. He convicted the accused u/s 7 of the Essential Supplies Act for contravention of Clauses 4(a) and 4(b) of the U.P. Salt Control order, 1947. The accused was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 300 or rigorous imprisonment for six months in default of fine. The 52 bags of salt recovered from the accused were confiscated to the State. An appeal filed by Rameshwar Prasad was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge of Ballia. Rameshwar Prasad has come to this Court in revision. 2. The accused conceded that he imported salt into district Ballia, and sold a few bags of salt in the district without any permission from the District Magistrate. The question is whether the accused is liable to be punished for these acts of import and sale of salt. 3. The State Government issued U.P. Salt Control Order, 1947 under powers conferred by Section 3 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946. Clause 4 of the Salt Control Order places restriction on import and sale without, a licence. Sub-clause (a) deals with sale of salt, while Sub-clause (b) deals with import of salt. Under both these Sub-clauses (a) and (b), licences are necessary for the sale and import of salt. Admittedly, the accused did not possess licences as contemplated by Sub-clauses (a) and(b) of Clause 4 of the U.P. Salt Control Order. 4. Mr. S.K. Verma appearing for the applicant urged two points in revision. His first contention was that there was no order making the U.P. Salt Control Order applicable to district Ballia. Admittedly, the accused did not possess licences as contemplated by Sub-clauses (a) and(b) of Clause 4 of the U.P. Salt Control Order. 4. Mr. S.K. Verma appearing for the applicant urged two points in revision. His first contention was that there was no order making the U.P. Salt Control Order applicable to district Ballia. Paper No. 8-A on the record purports to be a true copy of au order passed by the District Magistrate of Ballia on 9-10-1947. The document was certified as a 'true copy' by Sri Mukteshwar Nath, Reader, Sessions Judges' Court, Ballia. It is true that the document does not purport to be a true copy issued by the office of the District Magistrate. But I see no reason for supposing that, paper No. 8-A is a true copy. It is possible that the original order came before the learned Sessions Judge, and the learned Sessions Judge arranged to place a true copy of that order for purposes of the appeal before him. I shall, thetelore, assume that the District Magistrate of Ballia did pass an order on 9-10-1947, and paper No. 8-A is a true copy of that order. By this order the District Magistrate of Ballia directed that the U.P. Salt Control Order, 1947 would come into force in Ballia district with immediate effect. 5. Mr. S.K. Verma's next contention is that, the prosecution did not prove that the District Magistrate's order was duly published. This point was urged before the learned Sessions Judge also. But he was of the opinion that no publication was necessary. 6. Mr. Verma relied upon Emperor v. Akbar 1954 A.W.R. (H.C.) 230. In that case reference was made to Sub-rule (1) of Rule 119 of the Defence of India Rules. Rule 119(1) ran thus: ...shall publish a notice of such an Order in such manner as may, in the opinion of such authority, officer or person, be best adopted for informing persons whom the Order concerns...and thereupon the person...shall be deemed to have been duly informed of the Order. 7. It was, therefore, held in Akbar's case that-- No Orders passed by an authority under the Defence of India Rules can have any legal effect until notice of that order has been duly published as required by Rule 119. 7. It was, therefore, held in Akbar's case that-- No Orders passed by an authority under the Defence of India Rules can have any legal effect until notice of that order has been duly published as required by Rule 119. The language of that Rule is mandatory, and, therefore, it must be strictly carried out before the prosecution can ask the Court that the accused person was duly informed of the Order which he is alleged to have contravened. 8. In the present case we are dealing with an alleged contravention of the U.P. Salt Control Order 1947. Clause 1 of the Control Order deals with short title, extent and commencement. Sub-clause (ii) of Clause 1 states that the order extends to the whole of the United Provinces. Sub-clause (iii) of Clause 1 states: It, or any part thereof, shall come into force on such date and in such districts as the District Magistrate concerned may, by Order appoint in this behalf. 9. The Essential Supplies Act or the UP Salt Control Order, 1947 does not contain any provision corresponding to Rule 119 of the Defence of India Rules. So the principle of Akbar's case will not apply to the present case. On the plain language of Sub-clause III of Clause 1 of the UP Salt Control Order, 1947, the Control Order came into force in district Ballia as soon as the District Magistrate of Ballia issued the necessary Order. In the order dated 9-10-1947 issued by the District Magistrate of Ballia it was laid down that the Order should be published in any one or more of the following ways: (a) By publication in the official Gazette (b) by affixation on the notice boards...and (c) by beat of drums. It is true that the prosecution did not lead evidence to prove that the Order in question was published in any one of the three ways specified in the District Magistrate's Order. But I do not see any reason for supposing that that Order was not published at all. 10. I very well appreciate that, great hardship will be caused if District Magistrates do not take steps to give due publicity to their orders meant for the public. So as a matter of prudence, District Magistrates sought to take suitable steps to give sufficient publicity to orders meant for the general public. 10. I very well appreciate that, great hardship will be caused if District Magistrates do not take steps to give due publicity to their orders meant for the public. So as a matter of prudence, District Magistrates sought to take suitable steps to give sufficient publicity to orders meant for the general public. But as explained above, such publication is not a matter of legal necessity under Clause 1 of the UP Salt Control Order, 1947. Due publication in such cases is merely a matter of prudence and due caution, and not of legal obligation. 11. The Order was passed by the District Magistrate on 9-10-1947. As soon as that Order was passed the Salt Control Order became effective in district Ballia. It is no longer open to any person to plead that he was ignorant of the law of the land. Ignorance of law cannot be pleaded in defence. We must, therefore, presume that the accused knew that the UP Salt Control Order, 1947 was applicable in district Ballia also. 12. Mr. Verma urged that, as a matter of fact, the accused had no knowledge, the true position is that the offence, if any, was of technical nature. The Salt Control Order came into force in district Ballia in 1947. The offence under consideration were committed in the year 1953. In view of the lapse of time, it is rot possible to accept the plea that the accused was ignorant of the true legal position. The accused unlawfully imported 60 bags of salt, and unlawfully sold 8 bags of salt. So the sentence passed upon the accused cannot be said to be severe. The order confiscating the 52 bags of salt to the state was justified. 13. The revision application is dismissed.