AHMAD HUSSAIN Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Ahmad Hussain, aged 22, whose occupation is that of cycle- repairing, has been convicted under Rule 81(4), Defence of India Rules, for having contravened Rule 22, Motor Spirit Rationing Order, 1941, and has been sentenced to three months rigorous imprisonment. The case for the prosecution is that on 29 April 1944, at 10 P.M., P.W. 5 Ram Naresh Singh, noticed the petitioner moving away from the back side window of garage No. 5 of the Patna Police Lines. Ram Naresh (P.W. 5) challenged him and eventually caught him with two tins of red petrol, which have been marked as Exs. I and II. On his hulla, Sheojatan Singh (P.W. 3) and Ram Newaj Singh (P.W. 2) turned up on the scene. They saw the petitioner trying to free himself from the grip of P.W. 5, and, they also saw the two tins of petrol. They took the petitioner to the Inspector of Motor Vehicles (P.W. 6) who drew up a report, on the basis of which a first information report was drawn up, which is Exhibit 4(1).

(2.) The case for the defence, which can be gathered from the written statement and the trend of the cross-examination as well as from the evidence of two defence witnesses, seems to be that it was Ram Naresh Singh who was taking away the two tins of petrol, when he met the present petitioner on the road and wanted him to carry the tins to a petrol shop of a certain individual. On his refusal the petitioner was assaulted with slaps and falsely implicated in this case. The Courts below have accepted the prosecution story and have not accepted the defence version. Mr. Kazimi, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has referred to the finding of the lower appellate Court and urged that that finding does not bring the petitioner within the mischief of Rule 22, Motor Spirit Rationing Order, 1941. That rule says, "no person shall furnish or acquire a supply of motor spirit otherwise than in accordance with the provisions contained in this order." Now the finding to which reference has been made, is as follows: It appears from the evidence that the appellant was trying to extricate himself from the hold. The appellant has not been able to show that he was in lawful possession of the petrol. His defence that it was really Ram Naresh Singh who had the petrol and had asked him to carry it for him has not been shown to be true.

(3.) Mr. Kazimi argues that this finding is not enough to bring the petitioner within the wordings of Rule 22, which speaks of furnishing or acquiring a supply of motor spirit otherwise than in accordance with the provisions contained in this order.