LAWS(PVC)-1915-3-6

INDAR CHAND Vs. EMPEROR

Decided On March 24, 1915
INDAR CHAND Appellant
V/S
EMPEROR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has been convicted on two charges under Section 3 of Ordinance No. VI of 1914 for having contravened the provisions of Section 5 (7) of the Royal Proclamation of the 9th September relating to Trading with the Enemy. He was tried on three charges, but acquitted on the second. The first charge was to the effect that he had traded in a case of mica destined for a German firm in Germany, and third was to the effect that he had supplied to one Checcacci of Genoa 11 cases of mien, for and by way of transmission to a certain firm in Germany, and thereby traded in the said goods destined for the said enemy country and the said enemies. The Magistrate convicted that appellant on both charges of trading in goods destined for the enemy, and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 18 months on each charge, the sentences to run concurrently, and also to a fine of Rs. 1,000 on the third charge.

(2.) The facts are not in dispute. The appellant is a member of a firm in Calcutta and was in charge of the mica business of the firm. The firm had an agent, named Checcacci, in Genoa, who was apparently their sole agent in Europe. Before the outbreak of the war the appellant had shipped a case of mica per s.s "Nore" to a German firm, trading under the name of Rheinische Glimmerwaren Fabrik at Cologne vid Antwerp-Owing to the outbreak of war the ship did not proceed beyond London. On the 20th August Checcacci wrote to the accused that the German firm, whom for brevity I shall call the Rheinische Co. would pay for the case of mica or receipt of the goods. The accused then communicated with a London firm, Messrs. Baker and Startin, who had been buyers of mica from accused s firm, asking them to take delivery of the case from the London branch of the National Bank of India, and at the same time asked the National Bank in Calcutta to instruct their London branch to deliver the case to Baker and Startin. This was done, and the mica came into the hands of Baker and Startin. Apparently it never again came directly into the hands of the accused or Checcacci, for the Magistrate states in Ids judgment that Baker and Startin sold it. He does not, however say when Baker and Startin received it, nor when they disposed of it, and we have not been referred to any evidence on the point.

(3.) The prosecution relies on certain correspondence between the accused and Checcacci to establish the fact that negotiations went on between the Rheinische Co. and Checcacci on behalf of and with the authority of the accused, and that attempts were made to get the mica to Checcacci at Genoa to he forwarded to the Rheinische Co.