EMPEROR Vs. GULAMALLI BIN HUSAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the accused against his conviction by the Chief Presidency Magistrate under Rule 90B(7) of the Defence of India Rules, 1939, framed under the Defence of India Act, 1939.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the prosecution are that the accused landed in Bombay in February, 1941, from Aden, where he had sold a quantity of dates for a sum of Rs. 8,956, for which he had a draft on a Bombay bank, which in due course he cashed. On March 3 he was proposing to leave Bombay by a ship bound for the Persian Gulf, but which was to stay for a day in Karachi, and he had on him Rs. 8,900 in Government currency notes, being part of the money which he had received in respect of the bank draft. THE accused's case is that he is an inhabitant of Kuwait, which is either in Persia or in Arabia, the evidence does not show which, and he says that the only language he understands is Persian. When he was going on board the ship, he was searched by the Preventive Officer, and this sum of Rs. 8,900 in currency notes was found on his person, and was seized by the Preventive Officer. He was prosecuted before the Chief Presidency Magistrate in that he failed to declare with full details his possession of the currency notes when asked by the Customs Officer under Rule 90B(3)(a) of the Defence of India Rules.

(3.) THE conviction must, therefore, be set aside.