EMPEROR Vs. ABDULLA MAHOMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision by the Government of Bombay against the order of the Presidency Magistrate, 4 Additional Court, Mazagaon, Bombay, discharging the accused of the offences under Rule 39(i)(a)(b), and Rule 38(1)(b) and (5) read with Rule 121 of the Defence of India Rules, 1939.

(2.) The facts shortly are that the accused, who is a merchant in Bombay, sent, on August 19, 1943, a telegram from Bombay to his agent at Colombo as follows: 40 barrels Jalabala left 5th. Document sent.

(3.) This message was sent in reply to inquiries made by his agent about the cargo to be despatched by the vessel. The message was intercepted by the Censor's office in Bombay, and on August 31, the Censor's office sent it to the police for enquiry. The police traced the accused as the sender of the message and started proceedings against him under the rules mentioned above. The relevant provisions of Rule 38, Clause (1)(b), are that "no person shall, without lawful authority or excuse, communicate by any means whatsoever to any other person any information likely to assist the enemy"; and the relevant provisions of Rule 39(1) (a) are that "no person shall, without lawful authority or excuse, have in his possession any information likely to assist the enemy or any confidential information." The expression likely to assist the enemy occurs in both the rules and it is denned in Rule 34, Sub-rule (5)(k). The relevant part of the definition is that information likely to assist the enemy means any informa-tion, whether true or false, with respect to (k) the passage of any vessel near any, part of India. The accused admitted that he sent the telegram to Colombo and stated that he inferred the date of the steamer from the bill of lading.