RAMDAYAL ONKARLAL AGARWAL Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case raises an interesting point under the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933. The applicant has been prosecuted and fined Rs. 50 for failing in spite of demand to renew a license for a wireless set. His reply to the demand is contained in his letter (Ex. P-1) to the Post Master General which says that his wireless set has gone out of order and is not working for the last six months and he does not wish to renew the license until the machine is repaired. In reply it was pointed out to him that the possession of a wireless receiving set without a license, whether the set is in working order or not, is an offence. It has been found by the evidence of persons who examined the set, which is a four valve battery model, that it was defective in these particulars: One valve was broken and the plug connexions from the power unit and grid tension batteries were wanting. It was conceded that the apparatus in its present state is incapable of receiving sound and that to put it in order might cost from Rs. 50 to Rs. 100 while the present value of the apparatus is only Rs. 30 or Rs. 40. That last consideration, however, is beside the point. "Wireless telegraphy apparatus" is defined in Section

(2.) (2) of the Act and includes "any apparatus, appliance, instrument or material used or capable of use in wireless communication." However, it is only the possession of a complete wireless set without a license which is punishable. So the question is whether this set is a "complete wireless set" according to the definition given in Rule 2(c) of the rules made under the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act. That definition runs: Complete wireless set' means any apparatus which is capable in itself of transmitting or receiving wireless signals with or without the addition of aerials, valves, power supply, telephones, loud-speakers or equivalent devices. 2. The set of the applicant; was capable of receiving wireless signals with the addition of one valve, power supply in the shape of a battery, and plug connexion (which would come under the heading of equivalent devices.) The set then does fall under the definition of complete wireless set' because although not in itself complete it becomes complete when those articles are added which are mentioned in the definition. In other words, the definition amounts to this that a " complete wireless set " shall be deemed to include an incomplete set when the parts necessary to complete it are of the description specified, aerials, valves, etc. I am therefore forced to the conclusion that the conviction was technically correct, and it must be upheld. At the same time it is somewhat difficult to understand why this particular accused should have been prosecuted. He set out his objection in a. straightforward fashion, and it does appear that his set was badly out of order, that it would require considerable expenditure to repair it, and there is no reason for thinking that he had any desire to evade payment of license once the set was in working order. I quite recognize that it would open the way to deliberate evasions of the law if the rules were not interpreted strictly, but in the present case I think that a nominal fine was quite sufficient. The conviction is upheld, but the fine is reduced to Re. 1 with simple imprisonment of one week in. default.