SRINIVAS MALL BAIROLIYA Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants were convicted on November 4, 1943, by the Deputy Magistrate of Darbhanga, under the Defence of India Rules relating to the control of prices and were sentenced to terms of imprisonment. THE Sessions Judge confirmed the convictions and the sentences. Applications to the High Court of Patna for the revision of the judgment of the Sessions Judge were dismissed. THE appellants obtained special leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court to His Majesty in Council.

(2.) SRINIVAS Mall Bairoliya (hereafter called the 1st appellant) was at the material time acting as salt agent for part of the district of Darbhanga, He had been appointed to this office in October, 1942, by the District Magistrate. It was his duty to sell to licensed retail dealers the supplies of salt which were allocated by the Central Government to his part of the Darbhanga district. , Sitaram Prasad, who will be referred to hereafter as the 2nd appellant, was employed by the 1st appellant, who had entrusted him with the duty of allotting the appropriate quantity of salt to each retail dealer, and noting on the buyers' licence the quantity which he had bought and received.

(3.) IN addition to the Price Control Officer (Mr. A. Karim) and his clerk, twelve persons were called as witnessess at the trial, three of whom were the dealers named in the charges. The other nine were also dealers who had bought salt from the 1st appellant, and had had to deal with 2nd appellant. The evidence of the twelve dealer witnessess is summarized in the appellants' case as follows : That upon their application on various dates in the month of July, 1943, to appellant No.2 for the supply of a stated number of bags of salt, he refused to supply the required quantity unless the dealer paid to him a sum of Re, 1 in respect of each bag of Sambhar salt and Rs. 2 in respect of each bag of rock salt; that they paid the sums so demanded; that appellant No.2 thereupon entered on their licences the number of bags of salt which they required and remitted Re. 1 or Rs. 2 of the amount so paid; that the demand of such payments was made with the knowledge and approval of appellant No.1; and that, upon such payments being made, they presented their licences so endorsed, to Satyanarain" (another employee of the 1st appellant) "who, upon payment of the price of the quantity required by them, namely, Rs. 8-2-0 per maund of Sambhar salt and Rs. 3-5-6 of rock salt, authorised delivery of the amount of salt so purchased which they duly obtained.