RAMKISHORE PRASAD Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application to-set aside the conviction of the petitioner for an alleged contravention of an order under Rule 81(4), Defence of India Rules. The petitioner is alleged to have committed two-offences: first, that being a licensed retail dealer he sold a full tin of kerosene oil in contravention of the order of the Sub-divisional Officer of Siwan that full tins of kerosene oil were not to be sold; and, secondly, that the petitioner sold a tin of kerosene oil for Rs. 12, the maximum controlled price of which was Rs. 5-8-0. As in so many of the cases arising out of prosecutions under the Defence of India Rules, the prosecution find themselves in this Court in a difficulty which could have been easily avoided if the Public Prosecutor had taken the precaution of placing on the record the necessary evidence in proof of the order of the S. D. O. and the method of its promulgation. Although there is the ordinary presumption of law that every citizen knows the law, Rule 119, Defence of India Rules, is apparently based on the fact that no citizen, however diligent he may be, can hope to keep pace with the issue of the rules made under the Defence of India Act and their various amendments. It has, therefore, been provided that the person making orders under the Defence of India Rules shall take steps to ensure that the orders are promulgated in such a manner that they will reach the persons who will be affected by them. The person making the order is not confined to any one method of promulgation. He may, unless he has been otherwise directed by the authority empowering him to make the orders, select his own method of promulgating the orders which he makes. This is quite clear from Sub-rule (1) of Rule 119, the material language of which is as follows:

(2.) In the present case there is no evidence on the record that the order prohibiting the sale of kerosene oil in bulk or fixing the maximum price of it was promulgated in the manner directed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Siwan, or indeed, that the Sub-divisional Magistrate gave any directions in this behalf at all. It is regrettable, in my opinion, that it should be necessary for this Court to interfere so often with convictions for breach of rules intended for the protection of the community on grounds which could be avoided if the authorities concerned issued rules in accordance with the powers which they have, and if the persons responsible for conducting prose, cutions in the Courts below would take the trouble to see that the necessary proof of the orders and the method of promulgation are on the record of the case. In the present case that proof is not on the record, with the result that we must reluctantly set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner and direct that he be acquitted. Let a copy of the judgment in this case as also the judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 494 of 1944 be sent to the Local Government.

(3.) I agree.