RAM DIN Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This reference must be accepted. The accused has been convicted under Section 9(a) and (6) of Act XII of 1882 (Salt Act) for having manufactured saltpetre without a license.

(2.) He originally had license in the year 1922, which expired on the 31 of July 1922. He did not take out any fresh license until the 24 of April 1923. On that date the Salt Inspector visited a certain building, which is said to have been the place of the former factory of the applicant, and found a woman at work there. It is said that as soon as she saw him she threw into a pan some staff which she was manufacturing. A quantity of this, however, was taken out of the pan by the Inspector, and it is said to have been indelible salt. On these facts the accused was convicted under the Salt Act.

(3.) There are several difficulties in the way of the prosecution. The first point to note is, which by the way has not been noted by the learned Sessions Judge, that at least on the very day, the 24 of April 1923, when according to the Inspector salt manufacture was detected in the accused's building, he did obtain a license with effect from that date. The second thin is that there is no evidence on the record to show who this woman was, and there is no evidence to support the suggestion of the Inspector that she was the wife of the accused. Next, there is no satisfactory evidence to show that the stuff taken possession of by the Inspector was really salt.