(1.) ON the report made by the Station House Officer, Seoni, the applicant, who carried on the business of a grocer, was prosecuted and tried on the charge of possessing small coins in excess of his personal and business requirements punishable under Rule 90(2)(e), Defence of India Rules. He was found guilty and sentenced to four months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000. On appeal his conviction was upheld but the sentence of imprisonment passed against him was set aside. He has moved this Court in revision. The report made by the Station House Officer was as follows:
(2.) THE small coins of the value of Rs. 209-13-4 which were seized from the applicant consisted of Rs. 164-1-7 1/2 of small coins recovered from a safe from the first block, Rs. 12-13-6 recovered from an almirah and Rs. 32-14-3 from the cash box in the shop. Out of them there were silver Re. 0-8-0 pieces of Rs. 41-0-0 which were uncurrent. That left a balance of Rs. 168-14-4 1/2 small coins, viz., silver Re. 0-4-0 pieces which he had to account for. The evidence given by him to show that he had extensive business which required the use of the small coins to the amount of Rs. 168-14-4 1/2 was disbelieved and it was found that his requirements were such as could be met by small coins of the value of Rs. 50. I see no force in the contention that Clause (a) of Rule 90(2), Defence of India Rules, is ultra vires as being in excess of the power conferred by Section 2(xxii), Defence of India Act, which runs as follows:
(3.) THERE is no force in the contention that the report made by the Station House Officer did not cover a case falling under Rule 90(2)(e), Defence of India Rules. The expression "hoarding small coins" occurs twice in that report and hoarding is only a popular word for possessing anything in excess of one's requirement. It is said that 0-4-0 pieces bearing the effigy of George V were not in circulation because they had ceased to be issued by the treasury for some time prior to the alleged offence. It may be that the treasury had ceased to issue these coins but under the law they did not cease to be legal tender as is clear from the amendment of Section 15, Coinage (Amendment) Act (6 of 1940) as well as the notification issued on 1st October 1942. The evidence produced by the applicant to show that he tried to return 0-4-0 pieces to the treasury is highly discrepant and was rightly rejected in the Courts below. Nor is there any force in the contention that no question was put to the applicant as to whether the amount of small coins recovered from him was in excess of his requirements. It is true that there is no specific question but the absence of it has not resulted in any prejudice for the reason that he was fully aware of the nature of the offence alleged against him. The very fact that he examined Ramnath (D. W. 1) with the books of accounts to show the total sales of such items as sugar gur, salt, etc., establishes his knowledge of what he was called upon to account for.