IN RE: KARUMURI CHINA MALLAYYA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE charge against the petitioner was that on 25th October, 1945, he was found storing large quantities of mill made cloth for sale without a licence in contravention of Clause 4 of the Madras Cloth Dealers) Control Order, 1944. The Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Rajahmundry, discharged the petitioner under Section 253(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that there was no "legal evidence on record," justifying the presumption that the cloth found with the accused was stored for sale. There was an application by the Crown to revise the order of discharge and the learned Sessions Judge' set aside the order and directed the District Magistrate by himself or by any other Subordinate Magistrate to make a further enquiry into the case of the accused. The petitioner seeks, to revise the order of the learned Sessions Judge.

(2.) THERE can be no doubt that on 25th October, 1945, at about 6 p.m. the Textile -Control Officer, Rajahmundry, seized a large quantity of cloth from the accused. The Textile Control Officer then examined the accused and recorded a statement from him, Ex. C and he further took down another statement on the next day, Ex. C -1. According to these statements it is clear that the cloth was purchased and stored by the accused with the intention of selling. The prosecution relied upon (1) the statements made by the accused above referred to Exs. C and C -1 (2) the quantity of cloth found which was beyond the ordinary household requirements, and (3) the deposition of P.W. 5 a licensed dealer in cloth, who deposed that a commission agent brought a dealer to the accused and offered to arrange for the sale of the cloth stored by the accused. The Sub -Divisional Magistrate rejected the evidence of P.W. 5 as unreliable. Though he did not reject Exs. C and C -1 completely from evidence he refused to attach any importance to them. He appeared to be satisfied with the explanation of the accused that the large quantity of cloth was stored in anticipation of marriages in his house. He, therefore, thought that there was no legal evidence from which it could be inferred that the cloth, stored was for sale.

(3.) IT was contended by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the statements Exs. C and C -1 would be inadmissible in evidence because they must be held to have been caused by inducement, threat or promise having reference to the charge against the accused person proceeding from a person in authority within the meaning of Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act. This contention was based entirely in the statements in cross -examination of P.W. 1, the Textile Control Officer, namely: