1. Kania, C.J.:—This is an appeal from the decision of the High Court at Allahabad in Criminal Revision Application No. 600 of 1947. The material facts are these. The appellants are connected with Rangji's temple at Brindaban, in the District of Muttra, According to the High Denomination Bank Notes (Demonetisation) Ordinance, III of 1946, promulgated on the 12th January, 1946, every owner of a high denomination bank note desiring to tender it for exchange for notes of a lower denomination was required to prepare in the form set out in the Schedule to the said Ordinance three copies of a declaration signed by him, giving full particulars required by the form, and deliver the same, together with the high denomination bank note which he desired to exchange, to a branch of the Reserve Bank or to a scheduled bank or to a Government Treasury. The appellants being in possession of such notes filled in the form and delivered the same within the prescribed time to the Bank. As it was thought that the applicants had knowingly made false statements in the said declaration, a charge sheet was submitted against them on the 4th March, 1947 Certain witnesses were examined before the Magistrate and thereafter an objection was put forth on behalf of the appellants that as the Ordinance was no longer in force, they could not be prosecuted for anything alleged to have been done by them in contravention of the provisions of the Ordinance. The contention was rejected by the Magistrate. The appellants filed an application in revision to the Sessions Judge of Muttra, who rejected the same. Against that order the appellants filed an application in revision to the High Court. The High Court also rejected the contention and directed that the trial should proceed, but granted a certificate under s. 205 (1) of the Government of India Act, 1935. The appellants have thereupon come in appeal to this Court.

2.Before us a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the appeal has been urged by the Advocate-General of Allahabad. He contends that the order against which the appeal is filed is not a judgment, decree or final order of a High Court within the meaning of s. 205 (1) of the Constitution Act. A similar contention was raised before us in Kuppuswami Rao v. The Kin. For the reasons recorded by us in our judgment in Kuppuswami Rao v. The King¹, we uphold the objection. The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed.