EMPEROR Vs. GOURANGA CHANDRA PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference made by the Sessions Judge of Dacca recommending that the conviction and sentence passed on one Gouranga Chandra Pal be set aside. The facts which need be stated for the purpose of this reference briefly are as follows : Gouranga Chandra Pal is a dealer in mustard oil at Mirkadim within the jurisdiction of Police-station Munshiganj. The case against him is that he did not submit certain fortnightly returns and did not maintain a register or any accounts showing receipts, sale and the daily stock position with respect to mustard oil, thereby committing an offence made punishable under Rule 81(4) of the Defence of India Rules.

(2.) Under Rule 81 of the Defence of India Eules, the Central or Provincial Government may make certain orders of thenature mentioned in the rule. If any person contravenes an order made under the rule he is punishable under Sub-rule (4) of Rule 81. The case for the prosecution is that the District Magistrate, on 5 April 1946, made an order under R. 81 whereby he directed that dealers in mustard oil should submit the return and maintain the register mentioned above. The allegation against the accused is that he contravened the order and did not submit the return or maintain the register.

(3.) The defence taken waa that the order passed by the learned Magistrate was not duly promulgated in accordance with the provisions of Rule 119 of the Defence of India Rules. The accused did not contend that he had obeyed the order passed by the learned Magistrate. The trial Court has found that the order of the District Magistrate was not duly promulgated in accordance with the provisions of Rule 119, but it has held that there was a compliance with the "spirit" of the rule and that the accused knew of the existence of the order and was therefore liable to punishment under Rule 81(4). It thereupon convicted the accused and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 100, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months.