NARSINGH CHARAN DAS Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Narsingh Charan <JGN>Das</JGN> has been found guilty of contravening an order passed under Rule 75A, Defence of India Rules, and he has been sentenced under Sub-rule (7) of that rule to rigorous imprisonment for two months and a fine of Rs. 500, or in default to rigorous imprisonment for a period of five months. The petitioner appealed to the learned Sessions Judge which appeal was dismissed. Hence, the present application in revision.

(2.) The case against the petitioner was the following. The petitioner and his father resided in village Pritipur. His father died on 7 June 1943. In 1942-43 there was scarcity of food in the locality, and the District Magistrate had a list of stockists of paddy compiled within the sub-division of Jajpur. The list was prepared in December 1942. It was reported then that Chandramani <JGN>Das</JGN> , father of the present petitioner, had 1200 maunds of paddy in stock. By an order dated 16 May 1943, passed under Rule 75A,, Defence of India Rules, the District Magistrate requisitioned the aforesaid 1200 maunds of paddy, and directed Chandramani <JGN>Das</JGN> to make over the paddy to the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Jajpur, or his nominee. Chandramani <JGN>Das</JGN> , however, died shortly after, i.e., on 7 June 1948, and on 24th June 1943, the present petitioner was similarly served with an order under Rule 75A, Defence of India Rules. One Bashiruddin Khan, was sent by the Sub- divisional Magistrate of Jajpur to-receive delivery of 1200 maunds of paddy from the petitioner. On 29 June 1943, Bashiruddin Khan came to the house of the petitioner with some bullock carts. It is stated that the petitioner gave only 30 1/2 maunds of paddy on that occasion, and refused to deliver the remainder of the paddy. On this, the petitioner was put on trial for a contravention of an order made under Rule 75A, Defence of India Rules.

(3.) Both the Courts below have accepted the prosecution case that the petitioner had contravened an order under Rule 75A, Defence of India Rules, and was, therefore, liable to be punished under Sub-rule (7) of the said rule.