9911796707
TMI Blog1947 (4) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty to sell to licensed retail dealers the supplies of salt which were allocated by the Central Government to his part of the Darbhanga district., Sitaram Prasad, who will be referred to hereafter as the 2nd appellant, was employed by the 1st appellant, who had entrusted him with the duty of allotting the appropriate quantity of salt to each retail dealer, and noting on the buyers' licence the quantity which he had bought and received. 3. The proper performance of these duties was essential to the due enforcement of orders made under the Defence of India Rules. By Rule 81(2) of these Rules, the validity of which is not in question, Provincial Governments were empowered to make orders to provide for controlling the prices at which articles or things of any description whatsoever might be sold. The Defence of India Act, 1939, under which the Rules were made, empowered the Provincial Governments to delegate the exercise of their powers to certain officers, and the power to provide by order for controlling the prices at which various articles (among them salt) might be sold otherwise than in a primary wholesale market had been in fact delegated to District Magistrate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rised delivery of the amount of salt so purchased which they duly obtained. 6. It appears that the 2nd appellant allowed each purchaser to take one bag without levying an additional charge for it. This accounts for the remission of Re. 1 or ₹ 2 of the total amount paid in respect of the full number of bags bought. 7. It was contended on behalf of both appellants that, even assuming that all these facts were proved and that there was no other valid reason for reversing the decision of the High Court, their appeals should succeed because the evidence did not establish that a larger price had been demanded or paid than that which was alleged to have been fixed by the District Magistrate's order. Most of the dealers who gave evidence agreed in cross-examination that they had regarded the payment levied by the 2nd appellant as an illegal gratification, and the argument was that it was merely a bribe, which went into the 2nd appellant's own pocket and formed no part of the purchase price. This argument was rejected by all the Courts in India, and in their Lordships' opinion it deserved no better fate. Whatever name may be given to the sum w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... justified in taking cognizance of the contraventions alleged in this report. Their Lordships are of opinion that the main object of Rule 130(1) is, on the face of it, obvious. It was to protect persons against charges made by private individuals, who might be irresponsible or malicious. It would not be right to interpret it as demanding a detailed formulation of charges with the names of witnesses. In many cases more specific allegations would be desirable, but in the particular circumstances of this case the Price Control Officer, with information of a series of offences before him, sufficiently complied with the rule by reporting the result of his information, tested as it had been by the examination of a number of witnesses. Although he had not examined Jangal Mian, he may well have had information with regard to the offence to which that dealer subsequently testified. It is to be observed that one of the dates specified in the Report is July 21, and that the transaction with Jangal Mian was the only one of that date which was alleged in the charges made. In the circumstances it may be presumed that the Price Control Officer had some knowledge of this transaction when he made h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arma's subordinates, they are important as an indication that the approval signified by the District Magistrate was intended to be acted upon without any further direction from him. The dates on which the District Magistrate (Mr. C.L. Bryson) affixed his signature to these documents were January 28, and February 1, 1943. There was no other documentary evidence of any order, but Mr. Karim produced three printed price lists, dated June 19, July 20, and August 9, 1943, with the name of the District Magistrate, Mr. Bryson, itself-also in print, at the foot of each of them. No price lists were produced bearing Mr. Bryson's written signature, and there was no evidence that he had in fact signed any such lists, or that the printed lists produced were copies of signed originals. The latest in date of the documents could have no direct relevance to any of the charges, which, it will be observed, all relate to earlier dates. The others have no evidential value in themselves. Mr. Karim, however, said in his evidence when he produced them The price lists are distributed among the merchants through the peons, and a clerk in his office deposed that the rates fixed were printed and were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were plainly orders affecting a class of persons. No doubt such a presumption as existed here might easily have been rebutted, and the slight evidence given might readily have been displaced, if in fact the orders had not been brought to the notice of the appellants or at least duly promulgated. Far from its being rebutted, however, the presumption is much strengthened when it is seen that the written statements of the appellants do not suggest that they were ignorant of the controlled rate, and that the objection that it had not been proved that due notice of the order had been given appeared for the first time in the appellants' notice of application to the High Court. Their Lordships are satisfied that the point is without substance, and even if it had any technical justification, it would be impossible to say in these circumstances that a miscarriage of justice had resulted. 13. The appellants' remaining submissions may be disposed of shortly. A number of dealers were called who spoke of transactions, not the subject of any charge, which they had had with the appellants during, or shortly before or after, the period covered by the dates of the offences c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the utmost importance for the protection of the liberty of the subject that the Court should always bear in mind that, unless the statute, either clearly or by necessary implication, rules out mens rea as a constituent part of a crime, a defendant should not be found guilty of an offence against the criminal law unless he has got a guilty mind. (Brend v. Wood) 110 J.P. 317 . 15. Some complaint was made that the Deputy Magistrate had paid attention to recorded statements of persons who were not called to give evidence before him. It will suffice to say as to this that if those statements are wholly left out of account there was till ample evidence to justify the Deputy Magistrate's decision. (See Section 167 of the Indian Evidence Act.) 16. Finally, it was urged that reliance had been placed on the uncorroborated evidence of accomplices. Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act expressly provides that an accomplice shall be a competent witness against an accused person and that a conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. No doubt the evidence of accomplices ought as a rule to be regard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
