PRAHLAD RAI Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Prahlad Bai has been sentenced to nine months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000 for contravening an order of the Sub- Divisional Magistrate of Rajmahal prohibiting the sale of certain commodities above a certain rate. The other petitioner, Nathmal Marwari is an employee of Prahlad Rai, and has been sentenced to three months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 300 for the same offence.

(2.) In exercise of powers conferred by Rule 81(2)(b), Defence of India Rules, the Sub-Divisional Officer, made an order prohibiting the sale of sugar at more than Rs. 15 a maund, flour at Rs. 8-14-0 a maund, white kerosene oil at Rs. 5-4-3 a tin and red kerosene oil at Rs. 4-18-6 a tin. It is-alleged that the petitioners sold four tins of kerosene oil at Rs. 8 a tin, flour at Rs. 18-8-0 a maund and sugar at Rs. 22-8-0 a maund. A cash memo was issued to the purchaser showing the prices charged to be those fixed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, although, in fact, the prices charged were as stated.

(3.) The only question that has been argued before us is that the conviction is wrong in the absence of proof that the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer was published in the manner required by Rule 119, Defence of India Rules, that is to say, in the manner which the Sub-Divisional Officer considered to be best adapted for bringing his order to the notice of the persons to be affected by it. We have been referred to decisions of this Court and of other Courts on this question. The prosecution offered no direct evidence of the method of publication, or of the method prescribed by the Sub-Divisional Officer for publication of his order. But the prosecution are entitled to ask the Court to come to a finding of fact not only on evidence which they lead but on evidence which is otherwise brought on the record. The material finding in this case is that the petitioners issued a cash memo wrongly showing that the prices they had charged were the prices actually prescribed by the Sub-Divisional Officer.