Judgment S.P. Pathak, J.-The State has filed this appeal against the acquittal of the accused-respondent recorded by the learned Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act, Jalore in Criminal Misc. Case No. 17/1986 dated 21.07.1987. 2. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor and learned Counsel for the accused-respondents. 3. Learned Counsel for the State has submitted that the trial court has committed illegality while acquitting the accused on account of the provisions of Cattle Fodder Act, which was in existence at the relevant time, and subsequently it became a dead law. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, at that time when violation was made, the Act was in force, therefore, the learned trial court should have convicted the accused, when it found violation of Order 1985, by which it was prohibited that Fodder and other things having been prohibited under the Order were not required to be taken out from the Rajasthan. 4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the accused-respondents has submitted that the trial court after considering the matter and taking into consideration the law laid down by this Court in Ramchandra vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in 1972 RLW - page 272, came to the conclusion that when temporary Statute remains not in force, then after lapse of that Statute, conviction could not have been recorded. 5. I have considered the above submissions. 6. In the present matter, it is correct that violation of the Order 1985 was done. It is also correct that the violation of the Order suggested against the accused-respondent, is no more in existence after 1987. The decision rendered in Ramchandras case (Supra) indicates that no action can be taken against violation of an order issued under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, after it ceases to be in existence, may be for the reason being for a temporary period or it lapsed by a flux of time. The learned trial court has given cogent reasons while arriving at the conclusion. 7. It is a matter relating to fodder and the incident is of 1986 and more than 20 years have elapsed. The law in this behalf is a dead law. In my humble opinion, the present appeal has got no force because in the present case, there was no Saving Clause in the order. 7. It is a matter relating to fodder and the incident is of 1986 and more than 20 years have elapsed. The law in this behalf is a dead law. In my humble opinion, the present appeal has got no force because in the present case, there was no Saving Clause in the order. In this view of the matter also, the effect of the order after a lapse of the time, could not be pursued. 8. In view of forgoing discussion, the State appeal having no merit, deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.