ROSHAN LAL Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three applications in revision are connected with Cri. Revn. Nos. 518, 542 and others. All these revisions have been connected and heard together because there is one common question involved in all of them, viz., the question of the validity of the U.P. Food Grains and Oil Seeds (Movement) Control Order, 1943. The applicants in these three revisions are three sets of persons who were accused of an offence under Rule 81(4), Defence of India Rules, inasmuch as they were alleged to have contravened the provisions of para. 3, U.P. Food Grains and Oil Seeds (Movement) Control Order, 1943. The three applicants of Revn. No. 508 are Roshan Lal, Ram Das and Puran Mal. They are the proprietors of the firm of grain dealers Messrs. Roshan Lal Durga Prasad of Bareilly. In Revn. No. 509 the applicant is Harihar Prasad, the railway dalal who, according to the prosecution, had arranged for the export of grain by the firm of Roshan Lal Durga Prasad. In Revn. No. 536 the applicant is Durga Prasad, the Station Master of Bhitaura railway station, some four or five stations north of Bareilly, from where the consignment of grain was despatched. In. the trial Court, along with these five persons there was another set of the accused consisting of four persons, viz., Girdhari Lal, Lachhmi Narain, Ram Kumar and Suraj Bhan, in whose names the railway receipts were prepared at the time of despatch of the grain. These four persons were acquitted by the learned Magistrate substantially on the ground that they were merely men of straw and were mere tools in the hands of the firm Roshan Lal Durga Prasad. The three sets of applicants, however, were convicted by the learned Magistrate. Roshan Lal, Ram Das and Puran Mal were convicted under Rule 81(4) read with Rule 122, Defence of India Rules, and sentenced each to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 1000, in default further rigorous imprisonment for two months each. Harihar Prasad, the railway dalal, was convicted under Rule 81(4) read with Rule 121, Defence of India Rules, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three months with a fine of Rs. 500, in default to undergo-three months further rigorous imprisonment. Lastly, Durga Prasad, the Station Master of Bhitaura Station, was convicted under Rule 81(4), Defence of India Rules, and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000 or in default two months further rigorous imprisonment. The arhar which was seized was also directed to be forfeited to his Majesty after the period of appeal.

(2.) On appeal to the Sessions Judge, the convictions of the applicants were affirmed but the sentences of Roshan Lal, Ram Das and Puran Mal were reduced to four months rigorous imprisonment and the amount of fine was reduced from Rs. 1000 to Rs. 100 each. In default of payment of fine, it was directed that each of them will undergo one month's further rigorous imprisonment. The sentence of Harihar Prasad was also reduced to one month's rigorous imprisonment and the sentence of fine was reduced to Rs. 350 or in default six weeks further rigorous imprisonment. In the case of Durga Prasad, the Station Master, the learned Sessions Judge reduced the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone and the amount of fine was reduced to Rs. 500 only with one month's rigorous imprisonment in default. Against the orders of the learned Sessions Judge the applicants have come up in revision to this Court.

(3.) The case against the applicants in substance was that in contravention of Para. 3, U.P. Food Grains and Oil Seeds (Movement) Control Order, 1943, they exported arhar without a permit from railway station Bhitaura in the United Provinces to Howrah (a place outside the United Provinces) on 29 and 3lst August 1943. It was alleged that four wagon loads of arhar were despatched from Bhitaura railway station. Of these four wagons, it is in evidence, two of them actually arrived at their destination and delivery was actually taken by the consignees. The other two wagons also arrived at Howrah but before delivery could be taken, it was stopped by the intervention of the authorities. It may be stated at the outset that the facts alleged by the prosecution, generally speaking, are all admitted and the points of controversy which arose in this case were almost all confined to questions of law. In the Court of the learned Magistrate all the accused pleaded not guilty. Roshan Lal, Bam Das and Puran Mal admitted to be the partners of the firm Roshan Lal Durga Prasad, and Roshan Lal admitted that he despatched the arhar in question to Howrah but he set up the plea that he was ignorant of the prohibitory Order and further that he learnt from the Station Master, Bhitaura, that arhar could be booked for Howrah. Durga Prasad, the Station Master, admitted to have booked the arhar from Bhitaura railway station but he said that he did so with the permission of the Divisional Superintendent. Harihar Prasad, the railway dalal, admitted that he had arranged with the Station Master at Bhitaura railway station for the despatch of the arhar in the four wagons in question, but he said that he had been informed by the Station Master that the law had been changed and that arhar could be booked to Howrah. The prosecution examined no less than fourteen witnesses in support of its allegations and nine witnesses were examined on behalf of the defence in support of the defence case. On a consideration of the entire evidence and the circumstances of the case, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that it was established that the three proprietors of the firm Roshan Lal Durga Prasad took an active part in connection with the despatch of the four wagon loads of arhar from Bhitaura and that, therefore, they were all guilty of the offence with which they were charged. Similarly he found that Harihar Prasad, the railway dalal, had taken a very active part in the export of the arhar in question, that he was the man who had engaged carts for the transport of the arhar in question from Bareilly to Bhitaura railway station and, finally, that he was the man who produced the forwarding notes (the applications) for wagons before the Station Master. Lastly, regarding the Station Master, the learned Magistrate held that he must be deemed to be aware of the legal position and that he had as a matter of fact secured the wagons for the despatch of arhar to Howrah without informing the Divisional Superintendent that no permit had been obtained for the same. In view of the findings mentioned above the learned Magistrate convicted all these five applicants and sentenced them as already stated. The learned Sessions Judge on appeal, as has already been mentioned, affirmed the findings arrived at by the learned Magistrate, confirmed the convictions of all these applicants but modified the sentences as indicated above.