JUDGMENT 1. - This is a reference made by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur District, Jaipur, with a recommendation that charges framed against Kana, Jhuntha, Deva, Lachha and Nola sons of Ramu Jat, under section 3 read with S. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for contravention of the provisions of the Rajasthan Guest Control Order(hereinafter referred to as the order), which was published in the Rajasthan Raj Patra Extraordinary Part 4 (c), vide No. F. 17 (358 II) F/S 65, dated 12th September, 1965, may be quashed. 2. The reference arises under the following circumstances:-On 20th May, 1969, Padma son of Toda Ram Jat resident of Ranjitpura and Ramnath son of Dhuda Ram Naik resident of Rainwal presented an application in the Gram Panchayat, Rainwal, that Ramu son of Kalu Jat resident of Odhaniyawali Dhani had expired on 10th May, 1969, and that in connection with his funeral a feast of about 3000 persons would be given by his sons on 21st May, 1969. Upon receipt of this application, the Acting Sarpanch informed the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sambhar Lake, about anticipatory breach of the Order on telephone. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate advised the acting Sarpanch to move the Station House Officer, Rainwal. The Acting Sarpanch, thereupon, sent a report to the police station, Rainwal. On the basis of the report, the Station House Officer, Rainwal, registered a criminal case under S. 3 read with S. 7 of the Act against the sons of the deceased, namely, Lachha, Deva, Jhuntha, Kana and Nola and made the usual investigation. During the course of investigation, it was found that the accused persons served or provided for consumption prohibited food stuff to more than 100 persons in connection with the funeral-feast of their deceased father. On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the aforesaid sons of the deceased under S. 3/7 of the Act in the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sambhar Lake. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate framed necessary charges against the accused persons and proceeded to try them for contravention of the provisions of the Order. After coming into force of the Criminal procedure Code, 1973, this case was transferred to the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Jaipur District, Jaipur, for trial. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate framed necessary charges against the accused persons and proceeded to try them for contravention of the provisions of the Order. After coming into force of the Criminal procedure Code, 1973, this case was transferred to the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Jaipur District, Jaipur, for trial. In the course of trial before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, an application was presented on behalf of the accused persons that in view of an authority of this Court Ram Chandra v. State of Rajasthan, 1972 R.L.W. 272 , the accused persons cannot be prosecuted under the provisions of the Order as it was a temporary enactment and was rescinded by Food Supplies Department Notification No, S. 0.29 dated 9th September, 1971, and as no savings clause had been inserted in the notification to show that even after its rescission it would remain alive for pending cases. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur District, Jaipur, relying upon the referred-to above authority of this Court, was of the view that the Order was a temporary enactment and after the expiry thereof, the proceedings already taken against the accused persons in this case automatically terminated in the absence of a savings clause to the contrary. He has, therefore, made this reference to this Court for quashing the charges framed against the accused persons. 3. Notice of this reference was given to the accused persons and to the Public Prosecutor. Mr. A.K Bhandari appeared on behalf of the accused persons and supported the reference. Dr. S. S Bhandawat put in his appearance on behalf of the State and vehemently contended before me that the Order was not a temporary enactment and that it did not expire by efflux of time or upon happening of a contingency, but it was rescinded or repealed with immediate effect by the Food Supplies Department Notification No. S. O. 29 dated 9th September, 1971. According to him, the repeal of the Order attracted the operation of S. 6 of the Rajasthan General Clauses Act, which clearly provides that unless there is an intention to the contrary, the repeal of an Act or Regulation shall not affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed or affect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability etc. as aforesaid and that such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued, or enforced as if the repealing law had not been passed. 4. I have carefully gone through the authority of this Court and other authorities relied upon by Mr. A.K. Bhandari. At the outset I may observe that in Ram Chandra v. State of Rajasthan (supra), it appears that it was admitted by both the sides that the Order was a temporary enactment. The learned Judge proceeded on the admission made by the parties and observed that after the expiry of the Order the proceedings already taken under it automatically terminated in the absence of provisions made for pending proceedings. The observations made by the learned Judge are quoted below in extenso:- "3. It is an admitted position that the Rajasthan Guest Control Order, 1965, published in the Rajasthan Gezette, extra-ordinary part IV, dated the 12th September, 1965, was a temporary enactment. There is also no controversy that temporary statute was rescinded by the State Government by its Notification No. S. 0.29 dated September 9, 1971. Further, there is no dispute that in the above Notification no saving clause has been inserted, providing that the cases which were pending on September 9, 1971, would remain unaffected. 5. In the present case the Notification No. S O. 29, dated September 9,1971, rescinding the Rajasthan Guest Control Order, 1965, does not contain an appropriate saving clause and, therefore, the accused are well within their right to contend that after the expiry of the Rajasthan Guest Control Order, 1965, the procedure laid down in it would no longer be invoked in the case then pending against them. Such being the settled law, the petitioners Ramchandra and Suraj Narain cannot now be prosecuted under the relevant provisions of the Rajasthan Guest Control Order, 1965." The above quoted observations clearly show that in fact the point of law, i.e. whether the Rajasthan Guest Control Order, 1965, was or was not a temporary, enactment, was not actually convassed or contested before Hon'ble Mahta J. so as to require adjudication. Had this vital aspect of law been convassed before him, the Hon'ble Judge would have discussed it in his judgment and would not have proceeded on the assumption that the order was admittedly a temporary enactment. Had this vital aspect of law been convassed before him, the Hon'ble Judge would have discussed it in his judgment and would not have proceeded on the assumption that the order was admittedly a temporary enactment. In the instant case, as stated above, the Public Prosecutor has contended before me that the Order was not a temporary enactment and that it did not expiry by efflux of time or on the happening of a contingency, but it remained in force upto 9th September, 1971, on which date it was rescinded with immediate effect vide Food Supplies Department Notification No. S. O 29 dated, Jaipur, 9th September, 1971. Hence, a necessity arises for adjudication on this law point. 6. Upon a bare look into the Order, it appears that this enactment was not made to expire by efflux of time or upon happening of a contingency. There is no period specified in this enactment that it would continue in force upto a particular date or upto the occurrence of any event. Unless there is some provisions in this enactment to show that it would die a natural death on any particular date or would automatically expire after a certain date, it cannot fail within the category of temporary enactments. Reference in this connection may be made to Halsbury's Laws of England, Third Edition, Volume 36, para 641 (page 421-422), which reads as follows:- "641. Permanent and temporary statutes. The duration of a statute is prima facie perpetual ; it endures until it is repealed, either expressly or by implication, by a subsequent statute, or in the exercise of a power conferred by statute, and does not lapse through non-user. A statute, or a particular provision thereof, may, however be merely temporary, that is to say, may be expressed to continue in force for a limited period only, in which case it will expire automatically at the end of that period unless earlier repealed." Hence, in my humble opinion, the Rajasthan Guest Control Order, 1965, was not a temporary enactment as it was not expressed to continue in force for a limited period, or to automatically lapse on the happening of a specified event without fresh legislation. Hence, it cannot be a safely held that the liability incurred by the accused persons in this case Ipso facto terminated with the repeal or rescission of the Order on 9th September, 1971. Hence, it cannot be a safely held that the liability incurred by the accused persons in this case Ipso facto terminated with the repeal or rescission of the Order on 9th September, 1971. It is undoubtedly true that the general rule in regard to a temporary statute is that in the absence of a savings clause to the contrary, proceedings which are being taken against a person under it will automatically come to an end as soon as the temporary statute expires, but if the provisions of any or Order are not temporary in character statute, the proceedings already taken against a person under such statute or Order do not Ipso facto terminate as soon as that statute or Order is repealed or abrogated, unless there is a contrary intention. Accordingly, I am of the view that the charges framed against the accused persons cannot be quashed merely because the Rajasthan Guest Control Order, 1965, has been rescinded by Food Supplies Department Notification No. S. O. 29 dated 9th September, 1971. The provisions of S. 6 of the Rajasthan General Clauses Act would come into play and the liability incurred under the repealed or abrogated enactment would not be affected and the proceedings in respect thereof would continue inspite of the rescission or repeal of the Rajasthan Guest Control Order, 1965, in the absence of any provision to the contrary for pending proceedings. 7. The reference is, therefore, devoid of substance and is hereby rejected. The case is sent to the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur, District, Jaipur, for trial of the accused persons in accordance with law on the charges framed against them. *******