STATE Vs. MUNNI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are five appeals brought by the State of Delhi against the acquittal of certain persons by a Magistrate of Delhi.

(2.) THE persons who were sent up for trial before the Magistrate were certain dyers and certain cloth merchants who had given a number of pieces of mill-made cotton cloth to them to dye. The charge against them was that they had defaced or caused to be defaced mill and textile markings from the pieces of cloth by giving them fast dyes and had, therefore, contravened the provisions of Clause 23 (d), Cotton Textiles (Control) Order, 1948. The dyers had further been charged that they had no distinguishing marks with them as required by notification No. T. C. (6) 1/44, dated 19-2-1949. The dyers pleaded guilty 10 far as the contravention of the notification No. T. C. (6)1/44 of 19-2-1949 was concerned but pleaded not guilty otherwise. The Magistrate fined the dyers certain sums of money for contravening this last notification. From this there is no appeal. The Magistrate acquitted both the dyers as well as the persons who gave them pieces of cloth to dye as in his opinion they had not contravened the provisions of sub- Clause (d) of Clause 23, cotton Textiles (Control) Order, 1948. The State of Delhi has appealed against the orders of acquittal. Clause 23 (d) runs as follows: "23 (1) Where the marking to be made and the time and manner of making it in respect of any class or specification of cloth or yarn have been specified under Clause 22: (a ). . . . . (b ). . . . . (c ). . . . . (d) no person shall alter or deface or cause or permit to be altered or defaced any markings made on any such cloth or yarn held by him otherwise than for his 'bona fide' personal requirements. "

(3.) IN Criminal Appeal No. 526 the accused are (1) Muni Lal, a cloth merchant of Chandni chowk Delhi and (2) Bashir Ahmad dyer of Delhi. The evidence in this case is that of Manchar lal. Inspector of Textiles who stated that on 26-11-1949 he went to the house of Bashir Ahmad, the dyer, from where he recovered dyed cloth, that 32 'thans' were wet bearing tex marks and 75 'thans' were dyed and dry, that these were of the same quality, that 'tex mark was visible' on some of the;e, that Bashir Ahmad was busy in dyeing the cloth, that the cloth and utensils (pens) were taken into possession (vide memo Exh. P. A) and that Bashir Ahmad did not have any distinguishing mark. The Magistrate noted that the second witness Om Parkash corroborated the first witness. This is the sole evidence in the case. Before recording evidence, the Magistrate had questioned the accused. Muni Lal had stated that he gave this cloth for colouring and not for defacing and accused 2 Bashir Ahmad admitted that he had no distinguishing mark. There was no defence produced. This case and ail the other four cases were tried summarily. (After stating briefly the cases against the accused persons in other four appeals and discussing the evidence the judgment proceeds:)