PROFULLA KUMAR ROY CHOUDHURY Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate of Khulna to show cause why the conviction of the petitioners under Section 9 (a) and (b), Salt Act, should not be set aside. There is also an Order of confiscation of the salt, which is also attacked. On behalf of the Crown, Mr. Roy Choudhury pointed out that the learned Additional District Judge is mistaken about the provision of law applicable to the confiscation and that the Order in question was passed under the provisions of the Criminal P. C..

(2.) The petitioners pleaded guilty. The only reason why I issued the Rule was the allegation made in Para. 6 of the petition. That is to the effect that they had been told by the officer of the Salt Department that they would be very leniently dealt with and the salt would be returned to them if they made a plea of guilty. They supported the statement by an affidavit sworn personally in the lower Court. Mr. Roy Choudhury contended that this affidavit is worthless because the petitioners cannot be prosecuted, if it is false. Now there is no reason to suppose that the only reliable statements made are statements which if false would lead to prosecution. Affidavits by other defendants would be of little use. There is nothing at all unlikely in the statement made in the affidavit and there is no counter affidavit on the other side.

(3.) Furthermore, there is strong corroboration of the truth of the affidavit in the proceedings that took place in the Magistrate's Court. The case was taken up for trial on 17 June 1942, There were three accused persons. One of them did not plead guilty and an adjournment had to be taken because the prosecution was not ready to go on as the witnesses were not present. From this it is quite obvious that there was some sort of discussion between the present petitioners and the officers of the Salt Department. Had that not been so, there would have been an application for an adjournment to produce the witnesses.