LT HECTOR THOMAS HUNTLAY Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was station master at Jamalpur on the East Indian Railway has been convicted of an offence under Section 161, Indian Penal Code, by a Special Tribunal constituted under ordinance 29 of 1943, and sentenced to 18 months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500, or in default, to a further period of six months rigorous imprisonment. There is no right of appeal against the conviction of a person tried by a Tribunal constituted under the Ordinance, but such a person has a right to apply to this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. It is the practice of this Court not to interfere with the decision of a subordinate Court in the exercise of Revisional jurisdiction unless through some defect in procedure the accused has been deprived of the right of a fair trial, or the decision of the Court is vitiated by reason of some mistake of law.

(2.) The facts are that one Mohurram Ali, p. W. 1, represented to the petitioner that he desired to despatch two wagon loads of sheep and goats by rail from Jamalpur to Bally, and requested the accused to place the necessary wagons at his disposal. Interviews between Mohurram and the petitioner took place on 22nd and 24 May 1943. On the latter date the petitioner is said to have made a pretence of telephoning to Howrah to enquire if wagons were available, and then to have informed the petitioner that the wagons would be available if he returned at 4 p. M. on the 26 with the necessary application forms filled in and with the sum of Rs. 20. According to the case for the prosecution the Rs. 20 was an illegal gratification demanded as a consideration for obtaining the wagons which Mohurram Ali required. It may be mentioned that on behalf of the defence it has been suggested that Mohurram Ali was not a person genuinely intending to despatch live-stock by rail, but merely an agent provocateur. However that may be, Inspector Lahiri of the Special Staff of the War Department of the Government of India received information, as a result of which he decided to lay a trap for the petitioner, and having obtained the permission of the Sub-divisional Officer of Monghyr to investigate the case under Section 155(2), Criminal P.C., he proceeded with the Sub-divisional Office to Jamalpur. The Inspector initialled two currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 10 each, in the presence of the Sub- divisional Officer and handed them to Mohurram Ali. At 4 P. M. on the 26th Mohurram Ali entered the petitioner's office at Jamalpur Railway Station. The Sub- divisional Officer and the Inspector remained outside. Mohurram Ali deposed that on entering the petitioner's office, he handed the application forms (Exs. 1 and 2) to the petitioner, who then said: "First pay me my twenty rupees." Thereupon, Mohurram Ali handed over the two currency notes which the Inspector had initialled, and the accused put them in a bag which he had in his pocket, and then returned to Mohurram Ali the two forms together with another slip (EX. 3). Mohurram Ali was directed to hand these papers to the goods clerk and to tell him that the sheep and goats were being sent on military account. Mohurram Ali emerged from the petitioner's office and signalled to the Sub-divisional Officer and Inspector that the currency notes had been handed over to the petitioner. These two officers then entered the petitioner's office and asked him if he had received any money from the man who just left his office. The petitioner at first denied this, but when informed that his person would be searched he produced the bag containing the two currency notes which had been initialled by the Inspector and given to Mohurram Ali. Afterwards the petitioner informed theSub-divisional Officer that these two notes had been given to him on account of demurrage.

(3.) At the relevant time the booking of wagons was controlled by the Divisional Superintendent, whose office is at Howrah. His Assistant Captain Sackett, p. w. 2, was examined as a witness in the case. He states that on 26 May he received from the accused a written requisition, dated the 24 (Ex. 4) for two wagons to be loaded with sheep and goats to be sent to Bally. One wagon was in fact allotted for this purpose; and the witness produced a telegraphic copy of the intimation to this effect sent to the petitioner on the afternoon of the 26th. He also stated that the petitioner was not entitled to demand any money on account of demurrage, the liability for which had not actually been incurred, as no question of demurrage could arise unless the consignor failed to complete the loading of the wagon placed at at his disposal within nine hours of the time that the wagon was placed in position for loading. Also, the petitioner was not entitled to represent that the booking of the sheep and goats to Bally was on military account, unless the consignor was able to produce a military credit note. The general assistant in the goods department of the Jamalpur station was examined as P. W. 3. He deposed that he detained a wagon on 24 May under instructions from the petitioner, although he had not received any forwarding note, and that, if he had been given the slip, Ex. 3, which the petitioner gave to Mohurram Ali on the afternoon of the 26 he would have required the consignor to fill in a separate application stating that the sheep and goats were to be booked on military account. As a matter of fact, the Sub-divisional Officer took possession of Exs. 1, 2 and 3 in the station master's office at about 4 P. M. on the 26th, and they never reached the goods department at all.