MADHAO VITHAL PAHAD Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused has been convicted under Clause (c) of Rule 90(2), Defence of India Rules. The facts are not in dispute. A person came to the shop of the accused, purchased or agreed to purchase goods worth three annas and tendered a rupee note in payment. The accused refused to accept the note and demanded small coins, and so the purchase fell through. Clause (c) of Ruel 90(2) penalises a person who refuses to accept in payment of a debt or otherwise any coin or note. The shop-keeper is not obliged to part with his goods unless there is a tender of the price. Under Section 12(1), Coinage Act, 3 of 1906, read with Section 2 of ordinance 4 of 1940, a rupee note is legal tender in payment or on account. That, in my opinion, means that a rupee note is a legal tender in payment for goods worth one rupee and is legal tender on account for goods worth more than a rupee. A tender of a rupee note for goods worth three annas is not a tender or offer of the price of the goods, and there is no obligation on the part of a shopkeeper to give change. If a shop-keeper acquires or possesses small coin in excess of his personal or business requirements, he may be prosecuted under Clause (d) or Clause (e) ibid. The application for revision must therefore be allowed. The conviction is set aside and the fine, if paid, must be refunded.