EMPEROR Vs. WASANT WAMAN BAPAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision against the petitioners conviction under Rule 39(6) of the Defence of India Rules, 1939, and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three months passed on them by the City Magistrate at Nasik and confirmed in appeal by the Sessions Judge at Nasik.

(2.) On receiving information that a proclaimed offender named Naik was hiding in a room on the second floor of Batan Kasar's house, the District Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate raided that room at 6 a. m. on August 3, 1943, but Naik was not found there. The two petitioners and two others named Shirsat and Khare were sleeping there, and when the room was searched, 58 pamphlets styled "Kranti-kari" (Revolutionary) were found lying in an open tin case. As those pamphlets contained prejudicial reports, as defined in Rule 34(7) of the Defence of India Rules, all the four persons found in the room were prosecuted for having them in their possession, without lawful authority or excuse, in contravention of Rule 39(1)(b) of the Defence of India Rules. The case against Shirsat and Khare was subsequently withdrawn and the trial of the two petitioners was proceeded with. The defence of the petitioners was that they were not occupying that room, but having returned late at night from a cinema show, they had gone to sleep with their friends in that room. This has not been believed by the learned Magistrate and the Sessions Judge. Baban Kasar, the owner of the house, says that one Vishnu Sonar took the room on hire from him for giving it to some students, and that the two petitioners and their friends Shirsat and Khare were occupying it. Relying upon his evidence, the learned Magistrate found that the room was in the joint occupation of all those four students and convicted the petitioners under Rule 39(6) of the Defence of India Rules. The learned Sessions Judge agreed with his findings and confirmed the conviction and the sentence.

(3.) It is not disputed that the pamphlets found in the room contain prejudicial reports and it is not open to the petitioners to challenge the findings of fact that they were in joint occupation of that room. Rule 39(1)(b) of the Defence of India Rules says that no person shall, without lawful authority or excuse, have in his possession any document containing any prejudicial report, and any contravention of this sub-rule is punishable under Rule 39(6). The petitioners say that they knew nothing about the presence of the incriminating pamphlets in that room and that they were not in their possession. But Sub-rule (2) of Rule 39 provides: Any person who, without lawful authority or excuse, has an any premises in his occupation or under his control any document containing any information likely to assist the enemy, any confidential information or any prejudicial report shall, unless he proves that he did not know, and had no reason to suspect, that the said document contained any such information or report as aforesaid, or that the said document was on such premises without his knowledge or against his consent, be deemed to have contravened this rule.