BALESHWAR BHAGAT Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Baleshwar Bhagat, was arrested on 24 February 1944, at the Bhagalpur railway station by two Sub-Inspectors of Police. He was then about to board a train for Bolepur, in the Province of Bengal; and as he had a season ticket in his possession, it may be presumed that he had been in the habit of making this journey frequently. The reason why the two Sub-Inspectors took him into custody was that they had reason to suspect that he had been exporting goods to Bengal without a permit, and more particularly that he intended to take with him on this occasion to Bolepur five boxes which contained sugar and ghee and other goods which he was not entitled to export except under a permit which admittedly he did not possess. The boxes were apparently lying on the platform outside the compartment of the train into which the petitioner was about to get.

(2.) Immediately after he was apprehended the petitioner is said to have offered the Sub-Inspectors a sum of Rs. 100 if they would take no action against him. For this he was prosecuted and convicted under Section 214, Indian Penal Code, and it is against this conviction that the present application has been preferred. The petitioner was also tried and convicted under Rule 81(4), Defence of India Rules, and when the learned Additional Sessions Judge heard the appeal, out of which this application arises, this conviction was subsisting. Shortly afterwards, however, the conviction was set aside on appeal by the learned Sessions Judge. The point taken by Mr. Safdar Imam, who appears in support of the application, was therefore, not a point that could have been taken in the lower appellate Court, Mr. Safdar Imam contends that, in the view of the matter taken by the learned Sessions Judge, no offence under Rule 81(4), Defence of India Rules, was committed and that, in consequence, even if his client did offer money to the Sub- Inspectors of Police he did not commit an offence under Section 214, Indian Penal Code.

(3.) This argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is supported by decisions of Division Benches of the High Courts of Madras and Bombay: Queen- Empress V/s. Saminatha (91) 14 Mad. 400 and Emperor V/s. Sanalal Lallubhai (13) 37 Bom. 658. In the latter decision it was pointed out that a Court dealing with a charge under Section 214, Indian Penal Code, is not entitled to question or review the correctness of the decision of another Court acquitting a person charged with having committed the offence which the person before it is charged with having attempted to conceal. I respectfully agree with these decisions and have no doubt myself but that they are correct. The petitioner did not have the sum of Rs. 100 on his person and did not actually produce and offer any money to the Sub- Inspectors. Nor, after he realised that they were determined to prosecute him, did he return to the police-station or make any further attempt to seduce them from their duty.