GADAI SAHU ALIAS GADADHAR SAHU Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision by Gadai Sahu alias Gadadhar Sahu and Alekha Sahu, two brothers, who have been convicted under Rule 90(3), Defence of India Rules, 1939. The former has been sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50 and the latter to three months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50. The prosecution was started as a result of a search conducted on 1 October 1942 by a Sub-Inspector in the grocery shop of the petitioners who live jointly and have a joint business, including the grocery shop which is situated in the local Charchika Bazar. The Sub-Inspector recovered a number of small coins of different denominations which were kept in a gunny bag inside a tin which was covered with waste papers. The learned Judge finds that in the gunny bag there were over 3300 copper pices, over 2600 copper half-pices and over 900 pie pieces, besides a small amount of nickel and silver coins. The learned advocate for the petitioner has given us details of these coins which show that the copper pices were of the value of Rs. 52 odd, half-pices of the value of Rs. 21 odd and the copper pies of the value of Rs. 5 odd, and the rest were small bits of the total value of Rs. 2 odd.

(2.) On these facts, the Courts below have come to the con-elusion that it is impossible to believe that these accused could really require these amounts of copper coins for their business although they have the largest shop in Banki, and accordingly took the view that "the purpose of the accused in keeping these coins was to hoard in the expectation of selling them for profit." It is convenient to quote Rule 90(2)(d). It is in these words: No person shall acquire coin to an amount in excess of his personal or business requirements for the time being....

(3.) The other part of the rule is not necessary to quote here as it concerns the case of an acquisition of coin from the currency office or treasury. This rule came into force by D.C. Department Notification No. 494-or/40 dated 31 August 1940. It will be noticed that the rule forbids a person from acquiring coins. It is well settled that a new Act or statute which penalises what otherwise is not an offence must be so construed as to make it strike at future acts or omissions unless the Legislature has clearly said so. In Doolubdassa Pettamberdass V/s. Ramloll Thackoorseydass (1851) 5 M.I.A. 109, after certain wager contracts had been entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendants, a new Act was passed which provided that all agreements, whether made in speaking, writing or otherwise, by way of gaming or wagering, shall be null and void; and no suit shall be allowed in any Court of law or equity for recovering any sum of money or valuable thing alleged to be won on any wager, or entrusted to any person to abide the event of any game, or on which any wager is made.