PEARE LAL Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision by three persons, Piarey Lal, Ganga Din and Bhaggo Lal against the appellate decision of the Sessions Judge of Pilibhit affirming their conviction by a Magistrate of the First Class under Rule 90(3), Defence of India Rules. Rule 90(2)(e) provides that no person shall possess small coin to an amount in excess of his personal or business requirements for the time being and Sub-rule (3) of that rule prescribes punishment for the contravention of sub-r. (-2)(e). The facts are not in controversy and are as follows : On 24 July 1943, the three applicants, along with certain other persons, were proceeding in a tonga from Bisalpur to Bilsanda bazar in Pilibhit district when they were overtaken by Muhammad Umar, the Station Officer of Bilsanda Police Station. All the three applicants were in possession of small coins and the charge against them was that the coins in their possession were in excess of their personal or business requirements. The small coins in possession of Piarey Lal, Ganga Din and Bhaggo Lal were of the value of Rs. 6-2-3, Rs. 7-5-0 and Rs. 22-8-0, respectively.

(2.) The trial Magistrate found all the three applicants guilty and sentenced Piarey Lal and Ganga Din to three months rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. 20 each, while Bhaggo Lal was sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of HS. 150. The conviction and the sentences were, on appeal, affirmed by the Sessions Judge. Piarey Lal is the servant of a confectioner and the defence put forward by him was that he was going to Bilsanda to purchase khoya (milk preparation) for the sweetmeat shop of his master. Ganga Din, who is the servant of a contractor, pleaded that he was going to Bilsanda to bring his family members from there. Bhaggo Lal is a merchant and he alleged that he was proceeding to Bilsanda to purchase grain. All the three applicants contended that the small coins in their possession were not in excess of their personal or business requirements and as such they were not guilty. The trial Magistrate accepted the assertion of Pearey Lal that he was going to Bilsanda to purchase khoya but observed that, as there were "no rulings on the point to show what amount of small coins can be said to be in excess of one's personal or business requirements," the decision of the question whether there was a contravention of Sub-rule (2)(e) must "depend only on the personal judgment of the Courts." He did not discuss the defence put forward by the other two applicants, Ganga Din and Bhaggo Lal and contented himself with the observations that in his judgment all the three applicants were guilty. This conclusion of the Magistrate was, as already stated, affirmed by the Sessions Judge.

(3.) The question which falls for consideration is the interpretation to be put on the expression "in excess of his personal or business requirements for the time being." I propose to dwell upon this question at some length, as the Magistrate rightly observed that there is no judicial pronouncement of this Court on the question for the guidance of the Courts below. The law has been enacted for the benefit of the society. The social machinery, already complex enough, is getting more and more complicated with the march of time. In fact, trade and commerce are throwing into shade all other professions and callings, and the attention which this enactment should receive must be commensurate with their magnitude and importance. The expression "in excess of his personal or business requirements for the time being" may be split up into two: "personal or business requirements" may be construed separately from "for the time being." The rule under consideration has been framed by the Central Government in exercise of the powers vested in it by Section 2, Defence of India Act (33 of 1939). In construing the phrase "personal or business requirements," it is therefore not only permissible but desirable to refer to the object of the Defence of India Act as disclosed by the Preamble to that Act. It aims at providing "special measures to ensure the public safety and interest and the defence of British India...." It is therefore a special measure with a special purpose and designed to meet a special situation.