EMPEROR Vs. MUKUNDLAL BANSILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application arises out of proceedings taken by the Inspector of Cotton Excise, Bombay Presidency, against the accused. In the complaint that was lodged on August 3, 1923, before the District Magistrate, the complainant alleged that, on April 14, 1923, he went to the Raja Bahadur Motilal Mills of Poona, of which the accused was the owner, and asked him to give reasonable facilities for the inspection of certain records showing production of mixed cotton and silk goods. At about 9 A.M. when he went there the accused gave instructions to his servants that facilities should be given to the complainant. The complainant waited up to 2 P.M., but he had not been able to get until then the inspection of the (1892) I.L.R. 15 Mad, 221. records and of the godown which he wanted. When the accused returned at about 2 p. M. he was said to have refused to let him have access to the godown and to the records which he wanted, and accordingly charged him under Section 25, clauses 9, of the Cotton Duties Act II of 1896 On this the trial proceeded before the First Class Magistrate Mr. Atre to whom the District Magistrate had transferred this complaint. The case assumed somewhat undue proportions partly on account of the line of argument which was adopted on behalf of the accused in the trial Court, But in the end the Magistrate found that under Section 16 of the Cotton Duties Act, the complainant was entitled to have free access to the godown, and also to have inspection of the accounts from the year 1915 up to 1923 which he wanted; that the access to the godown and to the records was refused by the accused. He accordingly found him guilty of having intentionally caused obstruction in the discharge of his duties to the complainant under Section 25, Clause 9, of the Cotton Duties Act, and sentenced the accused to simple imprisonment till the rising of the Court and a fine of Rs. 1000.

(2.) In appeal the learned Sessions Judge was not prepared to hold it proved as regards the account books from 1915 to 1920 that the Mill Authorities knew where they were and refused to produce them, and as regards the books from 1920 to 1923 he was not prepared to hold that the accounts were not produced. It may be mentioned that the connection of the accused with this Mill commenced in August 1920. The learned Judge, however, was satisfied on the evidence that the accused refused to give access to the godown, and that in doing so, he intentionally caused obstruction to the complainant. Accordingly he confirmed the conviction and upheld the sentence.

(3.) In the application before us the case on behalf of the applicant has been argued on the footing of the findings recorded by the Sessions Judge. We are no longer concerned with the obstruction alleged to have been caused to the complainant as regards the account books, because the learned Judge has so far found in favour of the accused.