SAGARMAL PODDAR Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are 4 applications in revision which have been heard together, as they raise a common question of law regarding some of the provisions of the Cotton Cloth and Yarn (Control) Order, (hereinafter referred to as the Control Order) made by the Central Government on 17-6-1943 in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-rule 2 of Rule 81, Defence India of Rules.

(2.) In Criminal Revision No. 186 of 1945 the petitioner is Sagarmal Poddar, who has been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 60 only or in default rigorous imprisonment for 15 days, under Rule 81(4), Defence of India Rules for an alleged contravention of the provisions of Clause 14(1)(a) of the Control Order. Toe allegation against him is that on 3-1-1915 he was found in possession of 15 bundles of grey yarn. It was alleged that the yarn had been manufactured before 1-8 1948, and the petitioner had contravened the provisions of Clause 14(1)(a) of the Control Order by being in possession of such yarn after 81-12-1944. The petitioner admitted that he was in possession of the yarn on the date in question, but raised the plea that he could not find a market for the same and was in possession of the undisposed of yarn as a result of circumstances beyond his control.

(3.) In criminal Revision No. 187 of 1945 the petitioner is Onkarmal Poddar. He is a licensed dealer in cloth and yarn at Sambalpur. The allegation against him is that on 4-1-1945 he was in possession of 1060 lbs. of coloured yarn, It was alleged that the yarn was manufactured before 1-8-1943, and the petitioner had contravened the provisions of Clause 14 of the Control Order by being in possession of the yarn after 31-12-1944. He has been convicted and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 100 only or in default rigorous imprisonment for one month, under Rule 81(4), Defence of India Rules for having contravened the provisions of Clause 14 of the Control Order. Asin the case of Sagarmal Poddar, it has been directed that the seized yarn shall be forfeited and 20 per cent. of the sale proceeds shall be credited to Government and the balance made over to the petitioners. The defence of Onkarmal Poddar was to the effect that he could not find a market for the yarn. He further alleged that some of the yarn was damaged and he wanted to sell them in the Eastern States for which he had entered into correspondence with the Provincial Government.