RAMESWARLAL KHANDELWALLA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS a petition to enlarge the Petitioner on bail. The Petitioner was prosecuted under Rule 41 of the Defence of India Rules, 1962.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that the Petitioner who is said to be a dealer in Kerosene in Nilgiri in the district of Balasore, sold a tin of white kerosene to one Gopinath Behera for Rs. 20 - which is much in excess of the authorised price, and hereby committed prejudicial act within the meaning of Clause 35(6)(1) of the Defence of India Rules. After charge -sheet was submitted, the bail application moved on behalf of the Petitioner was rejected by the Sub -divisional Officer, Nilgiri by his order dated 15 -10 -1965 on the ground that Kerosene is an essential commodity and the materials on record disclosed that the Petitioners sold Kerosene at a much higher price than the prevailing price. His application for bail before the Sessions Judge having also been rejected, the Petitioner has come up to this Court with this petition to enlarge him on bail.

(3.) THE learned Standing Counsel was given notice of this petition for bail by the Petitioner and was given due opportunity to oppose this application as required under Rule 155(a). He produced a notification of the Government showing that Rule 41 which penalises the commission of a prejudicial act within the meaning of Rule 35(6)(i) and for the contravention of which the Petitioner has been prosecuted, is one of those Rules notified for the purposes of Clause (b) of Rule 155. The other question that next arises for consideration is whether on the materials on record the Court is in a position to say that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the Petitioner is not guilty of such contravention, that is, the commission of the alleged prejudicial act. The -: Defence of India Act and the Rules made thereunder are pieces of emergency legislations. Rule 155 is an over -riding provision which takes away the powers of the Court to release a person on bail when he is charged for contravention of any such notified Rule, unless the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable ground to believe that the accused is not guilty of such contravention. In the present case, it is difficult at this stage to Bay that the Petitioner is not guilty of such contravention.