As per case facts, appellants, an uncle and nephew, were convicted under the Essential Commodities Act for unauthorized possession of government quota cement, meant for public works but allegedly intended ... for black-marketing. Their conviction was affirmed by the High Court, leading to the present appeal. The question arose whether a conviction under Section 7 of the E.C. Act was sustainable, given that statutory controls over cement price and distribution were reportedly withdrawn before the alleged incident. Finally, the Supreme Court found that prior to the alleged offense, central and state government controls on cement distribution and pricing were rescinded, and no subsisting order under the E.C. Act was violated. The Court held that without a saving clause, proceedings based on an omitted statutory provision lapse. Thus, the conviction was legally untenable and set aside, although it noted that investigating agencies might have considered Indian Penal Code provisions.