S. V. INGLEY Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER 1. This is an application for bail. The applicants are being prosecuted for an offence punishable under Rule 81(4) read with R. 121 of the Defence of India Rules. Their application was rejected by the trial Court as well as by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara, and they have presented this application to this Court.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that on the night between 4th and 5th August 1943 two carts laden with grain (which were stopped near Takia Naka, about a furlong away from Bhandara town), were being taken out of the Bhandara District on false permit. The carts contained eight bags of rice, four bags of wheat and two bags of juar. The permit held by applicant 1, Ingley, is dated 28th June 1948. It contains an endorsement by a Magistrate that it was renewed to continue in effect up to 15th August 1943. Under that permit, Ingley could remove four bags of rice and one bag of juar out of the Bhandara District. The one bag of juar, which was in excess of the quantity which Ingley was entitled to export under his permit, was, as alleged by the applicants, intended to be delivered to applicant 2, Muthmare, at his village in the Bhandara District not far from Takia Naka. The two carts also contained four bags of rice and four bags of wheat which were covered by a permit issued on 80th July 1943 in favour of Mr. Kolte, Government Auditor of Nagpur. Prima facie, the two permits of Ingley and Kolte covered the number of bags contained in the two carts. Only one bag of juar was in excess but it was intended to be delivered to Muthmare within the limits of the Bhandara District. The prosecution case, in fact, appears to be that Ingley had already removed a number of bags under his permit on 24th July 1943 when he exported grain from Lakhni. The permit produced in the case does not prima facie lend any support to this accusation: it does not contain any endorsement g showing that it had even been used before. On the other hand, it bears an endorsement by the Magistrate First Class, Bhandara, the genuineness of whose signature is not questioned here, extending the validity of the permit up to 15th August 1943.

(3.) THE case is of a somewhat peculiar character. The challan has been filed on the allegation that Ingley had used an expired permit. The permit that is produced indicates the contrary. It is said for the prosecution that there is reason to believe that a large quantity of grain had already been removed under the same permit with the connivance or active co-operation of some Government servants. A further investigation is necessary. If that is so, the challan itself was prematurely filed. The case against Ingley must be deemed to be still in the stage of investigation. How long would the police take to complete the investigation? No one knows. This case has been pending since 27th August. So far there is nothing except the bare statement to show that the permits had been already used before. What the prosecution desire is in fact a remand to custody under Section 344, Criminal P.C., when they oppose the application for bail. They have therefore to produce some evidence to prove their allegation. This case must be judged in the light of considerations set forth in Ahmadali v. Emperor A.I.R. 1915 Nag. 28. The information against the accused persons and others is, it is said, contained in the police diary which is confidential. That means that the information received is still not of such a character as would be good enough to be placed before the Court. The accused cannot be consequently called upon to answer to anything that the prosecution is not prepared to disclose to them. It is extremely unfair that the Court should act to the prejudice of -the accused on some material which is not disclosed to the accused.