ADAMJI UMAR DALAL Vs. STATE OF BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals by special leave are limited to the question of sentence only. In case No. 1783/P of 1950, which has given rise to Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 1951, the appellant Adamji Umar Dalai was tried along with five other persons on the following charges : Firstly, that you at Bombay on or about the 29th day of December 1949 in contravention of Government Notification No. 342/IV B, dated 27 -1 -46 issued under the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, attempted to export by rail out of the State of Bombay to Jalna, a place beyond the limits of Bombay State, 50 barrels of kerosene oil, without having any permit in that behalf, by misdescribing or causing the misdescription of the said barrels of oil as high speed diesel oil, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sections 7 and 8 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act. Secondly, that you at Bombay, on or about the 29th day of December 1949 attempted to export by rail 50 barrels of kerosene oil by misdescribing or causing the misdescription of the same as high speed diesel oil, and abetted each other in the commission of the said offence and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sections 106 and 107 of the Indian Railways Act, read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) IN cases Nos. 1784/P and 1785/P of 1950 the appellant was tried along with the same persons on similar charges in respect of two other lots of 50 and 15 barrels of kerosene oil respectively. These two cases have given rise to Appeal No. 55 of 1951.

(3.) THE fifth accused stated that accused Nos. 2 and 8 brought to him a delivery order asking him to deliver high speed diesel oil but that he delivered to them kerosene oil at their request. The first accused admitted that he on behalf of his firm placed an order for 65 barrels of high speed diesel oil through accused No. 2, but denied all knowledge about the alleged delivery of kerosene oil. The second accused said that he placed an order for diesel oil with Sunbeam Oil Company for 65 barrels and obtained a delivery order from the company and gave it to accused No. 3 and sent him to take delivery of the barrels from the godown of the company. He denied having told accused No. 5 to deliver kerosene oil instead of diesel oil. The third accused admitted having taken delivery of the barrels on the instructions of accused No. 2 and having sent them to Wadi Bunder in two lorries. He was surprised to learn that the barrels contained1 kerosene oil. He denied that he ever asked the company to deliver kerosene oil for diesel oil. The fourth accused said that he personally took no part in the transaction and had committed no offence. The sixth accused stated that he had delivered the barrels as ordered by accused No. 5 and had committed no offence. The learned Presidency Magistrate convicted accused Nos. 2, 3 and 5 on the charges levelled against them and acquitted accused Nos. 1, 4 and 6 as he felt some doubt in regard to them.