(1.) THIS is an application by the accused against his conviction by the trial Magistrate, and confirmed by the Sessions Judge at Nasik, for breach of the District Magistrate's order of December 27, 1943, to report the stock of Bajri in his possession, punishable under Rule 116 of the Defence of India Rules, 1939. The charge against the accused was that on February 6 last he failed to report his stock of Bajri to the Talati either orally or in writing within the time prescribed by the District Magistrate's order of December 27, 1943, which was published in the Bombay Government Gazette of January 6, 1944, and thereby he committed an offence punishable under Rule 116 of the Defence of India Rules.
(2.) IT is common ground that the order was published in the Bombay Government Gazette of January 6 last to the effect that stocks of certain cereals, viz. , Bajri, Jowar, Nagli, Paddy and Rice, should be declared in the first week of every month in the manner prescribed in the notification, if they exceeded a certain quantity, viz. , 25 maunds or 8 bags. The main defence of the accused was that the notification had not been duly promulgated according to law, that he was not aware of the said notification, and that he had not, therefore, committed any breach of Rule 116. That defence has been repelled in the lower Courts. IT has been held by the learned Sessions Judge in appeal that the notification had been promulgated in the village where the accused lived by beat of drum and that the District Magistrate had authorised the publication of the notification in that manner.
(3.) AS a result, we are of opinion that in the present case the material particulars of the notification had not been published as required by law and that the accused cannot be held guilty of disobeying an order the material terms of which he did not know. We, therefore, set aside the conviction of the accused of the offence as also his sentence and make the rule absolute. The fine, if recovered, should be refunded. The bail bond is cancelled.