MUSTAFA MARACAIR Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision by accused 22 & 23 against their conviction by the Sub- Magistrate of Vedaranniarn, confirmed on appeal by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Mannargudi, for an offence under Section 30-A, sub-CLAUSE (4), Emigration Act, VII [7] of 1922. They have been sentenced to pay a fine of RS. 10 each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for seven days.

(2.) The case for the prosecution is that accused 22 is the owner of the boat, and accused 28, the broker employed by him; accused 1 to 21 attempted to leave India without a permit, accused 1 to 5 being the crew and 6 to 21 being the passengers. When the boat had gone out some little distance from the shore it was intercepted and brought back. Accused 1 to 21 were arrested. Statements were taken from the tindel or master and also from the passengers. These statements showed that it was accused 22 and 23 that arranged for this trip and particularly accused 22 was present at the time when the passengers left the shore in the boat. All the accused were jointly tried. Accused 1 to 21 admitted the guilt, accused 22 and 23, however, pleaded not guilty. There was no direct evidence against them. Both the lower Courts have convicted them mainly on the statements made by the passengers and the master of the crew and P. W. 1, the Sub-Inspector of Customs who intercepted the boat and arrested the accused 1 to 21.

(3.) It is argued that this confessional statement can be taken into consideration under Section 80, Evidence Act, and is sufficient foundation for a conviction, particularly in view of the fact that accused 1 is owner of the boat, a fact which is admitted.