EMPEROR Vs. ABDULLA MAHOMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application in revision by the Government of Bombay against the order of the Presidency Magistrate, 4th Additional Court, Mazagaon, Bombay, discharging the accused of the offences under Rule 39(i)(a)(b), and Rule 38(1)(b) and (5) read with Rule 121 of the Defence of India Rules, 1939.

(2.) THE facts shortly are that the accused, who is a merchant in Bombay, sent, on August 19, 1943, a telegram from Bombay to his agent at Colombo as follows: 40 barrels 'Jalabala' left 5th. Document sent.

(3.) WE are unable to concur with the view taken by the learned Magistrate that the steamer cannot be said to be in the course of passage because it was not shown that it had not reached Colombo before the wire was sent In our opinion in view of the definition of the term 'information likely to assist the enemy', the question as to whether the steamer had reached Colombo by that date is entirely immaterial. It is also, in our opinion, immaterial that the telegram did not expressly mention that the steamer had left Bombay for Colombo. What the definition says is that the information, whether true or false, must be with respect to the passage of any vessel near any part of India, The passage may be from any place to any other place whether disclosed or not. All that is necessary is that the information must be with respect to the passage of a vessel near any part of India. The message having been sent from Bombay to Colombo, it must, in our opinion, be presumed that the information was in respect of the passage near any part of India.