US SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

After appellee had produced in an administrative proceeding records kept under a requirement of the Price Administrator's regulations, the Price Administrator petitioned the district court to institute criminal contempt proceedings against him for violating an injunction against selling used cars at over-ceiling prices. The court appointed the United States Attorney and the OPA District Enforcement Attorney as "attorneys to prosecute the criminal charges . . . on behalf of the Court and of the United States." Appellee's motion to dismiss was granted on the ground that he was entitled under § 202(g) of the Emergency Price Control Act to immunity from prosecution. The Government appealed to this Court under the Criminal Appeals Act.

Held:

1. The United States was, in any relevant sense, a party to the proceedings, and the appeal was properly brought under the Criminal Appeals Act. Pp. 335 U. S. 78-79.

2. Appellee was not entitled to immunity under § 202(g) of the Price Control Act, and the rule to show cause should not have been dismissed. See Shapiro v. United States, ante, p. 335 U. S. 1. P. 335 U. S. 79.

68 F.Supp. 53 reversed. chanrobles.com-red

Page 335 U. S. 78