GIRDHARI Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision by two persons, Girdhari and Nathi, who were convicted by a learned Magistrate of an offence under Rule 81(4), Defence of India Rules, and who appealed to the learned Sessions Judge at Muttra from that conviction but with no success. Each one of them was awarded a fine of Rs. 200. They have now come up in revision to this Court. The charge against the applicants was that they had worked a cream separator in village Dhana Teja without having the premises registered and that in doing so they had contravened an order passed by the District Magistrate of Muttra on 22 September, 1943. I find a slip on the record which purports to be a true copy of the said order of the District Magistrate of Muttra. It runs as follows: No person shall separate cream from milk by machine without getting the premises registered with the D.S.O.

(2.) On 19 October 1943, Abdul Samad Khan, a Sub-Inspector of Police, on receiving secret information proceeded to village Dhana Teja and there found the applicant Nathi Lal actually engaged in working the cream separating machine. The other applicant, Girdhari Lal, is alleged to be the joint owner of the machine, though he was not present at the time when the Sub-Inspector arrived on the scene. Both the applicants were prosecuted for having contravened the order of the District Magistrate of Muttra, dated 22 September, 1943, which has been cited above. When the applicant Girdhari Lal was examined as an accused person by the learned trying Magistrate and he was asked if he had been running a creamery in village Dhana Teja, he replied that the creamery did belong to him, but as a matter of fact the other applicant, Nathi Lal, who was his partner, was running the cream separating machine at the time when the Sub-Inspector arrived on the scene. He was then asked if he had got the premises registered in accordance with the order passed by the District Magistrate of Muttra, dated 22nd September 1943. In answer to that question he said that he had not, because he had no information of that order. The other applicant Nathi Lal admitted the fact that he was working the machine on 19 October 1943 without registration of the premises, but he also stated quite clearly at the same time that he had no information about any order requiring registration.

(3.) The learned trying Magistrate treated these pleas of the two applicants as pleas of guilty and convicted them on those pleas holding that he did not believe the applicants when they said that they had no knowledge of any order passed by the District Magistrate of Muttra on 22 September, 1943. When the applicants went up in appeal to the learned Sessions Judge of Muttra, it was contended on their behalf that the prosecution had not proved that the order passed by the District Magistrate of Muttra had been published as required by the Defence of India Rules, but this argument was brushed aside by the learned Sessions Judge on the ground that the two applicants had pleaded guilty in the lower Court. Their conviction was accordingly up-held and hence they have come up in revision to this Court.