THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. JEEVARATHNAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Public Prosecutor, Madras, appeals against the acquittal of the respondents by the learned Sessions Judge of East Tanjore in Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 1946 on his file. The respondents had been convicted by the Additional First Glass Magistrate, Negapatam, of an offence punishable under Rule 84 (vi) of the Defence of India Rules in that they contravened the provisions of Rule 84 (iv) of the same enactment. On appeal, the learned Judge holding that the Customs Union agreement between the Government of India and the Governor -General of the French Establishments in India has not been proved properly, concluded that the respondents were entitled to acquittal and accordingly directed the same.

(2.) SO far as the facts are concerned, there is no complication. On the 10th October, 1945, at about 8 -30 p.m., when the respondents were carrying by sea bundles of piecegoods in a catamaran bound for Jaffna, a party of Customs officials, including P.Ws. 1 and 2 sighted the craft some distance east of the Kodikkarai lighthouse, chased the catamaran and seized the goods. According to the prose -cution the respondents were exporting cloth from India in contravention of the Government of India Notification No. 91 CW 1/44, dated the 26th August, 1944.

(3.) THE second question was that if the export had been from any place in India within the jurisdiction of that Court, the trial and conviction are correct. On the evidence it is clearly proved - -and there is no doubt about it - -that the respondents were taking these eleven bundles of cloth from Karaikkal to Jaffna. Karaikkal is a portion of the French Republic Settlements in India and unless it is proved that this place comes within the term ' British India ' for the purpose of export, it cannot be held that any offence has been committed. In order to substantiate the case that the trial Court had jurisdiction, the prosecution relied upon certain documents some of which according to the learned Judge, had not been properly proved. The crucial document in the case was the Customs Union Agreement entered into between the Governor of French Establishments in British India and His Brittanic Majesty's Consul General in the said establishments acting on behalf of the Governor -General of the Government of India. The lower appellate Court states that P.W. 4 filed an extract which was marked as Ex. P -7 in the trial Court. Before the learned Sessions Judge a typed copy which does not contain or mention the signatures was produced purporting to have been made at Pondicherry and there was no evidence to prove the same under Section 78(6) of the Evidence Act. Holding that the Customs Union Agreement has not been proved, as stated already, the learned Judge acquitted the respondents.