CHHOTAN LAL Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, Chhotan Lal and Gulzari Lal Marwari, have been convicted under Rule 81(4) of the Defence of India Rules and sentenced to four months rigorous imprisonment each. The case for the prosecution is that on 31 May 1944 at 11 P.M. the Sub-Inspector, B.N. Chatterji, with a junior Sub-Inspector (P.W. 2) along with certain other officers visited the dhaura in Kenduadih on getting some information that the petitioners had brought a goods-truck with a view to smuggle dal to Bengal from the house of Maksudan Singh, who has been acquitted by the appellate Court. When they went to the place, they saw a military truck loaded with food stuffs, and sitting on that truck were these two petitioners. Seeing the police party they fled but the police succeeded in catching Chhotan. The dhaura, which is said to belong to Maksudan, who was a co-accused, was found to contain 79 bags of masoor dal, each bag weighing about 2 1/2 maunds. The case for the prosecution further is that out of these 79 bags about 50 bags were brought by Gulzari and Chhotan from the shop of one Rachhpal Marwari in Jharia and they have no licence for storing or hoarding dal. The charge against the present petitioners as well as Maksudan was as follows: That you, on or about 31 day of May 1944 at Kenduadih without being a licensed dealer under Foodgrains Control Order of 1942 and without any authority from District Magistrate, Dhanbad, kept 79 bags of masoor dal in the premises in the occupation of Maksudan Singh and contravened the Bihar Essential Foodgrains (Possession and Storage) Order, 1943, published in the Notification No. 12726--P.C. dated 17 September, 1943 and thereby committed an offence punishable under Rule 81(4) of the Defence of India Rules and within my cognizance.

(2.) The case for the defence as it appears from their statement under Section 342, Criminal P.C., was that they were not guilty, and there was only one suggestion in the course of cross-examination that Gulzari was implicated because he happened to be a nephew of one Phulchand. The fact that 79 bags of masoor dal were recovered from one of the rooms of the dhaura is not denied, and it is also admitted that neither the petitioners nor Maksudan had any licence as contemplated by the Notification. The learned Judge formulated the questions to be decided in this case as follows: The simple question that has to be decided in this case is whether the appellants stored these bags of masoor dal or not. In the case of Maksudan, however, a further question will arise whether one of the rooms in the dhaura from where the dal was recovered was in possession of appellant Maksudan.

(3.) Having formulated these questions the learned Judge went into the question as to how far the petitioners, Gulzari and Chhotan, had a hand in the various transactions beginning from the purchase till the dal was stored in the room from where it was recovered, because the learned Judge has referred to the fact that these people were responsible for the transport of the dal from the place where it was purchased. Now, the finding of the learned Judge, after referring to certain circumstances is as follows: This taken with the fact that Gulzari was sitting on the truck near the dhaura and that he ran away when chased by the police is a circumstance to support the prosecution case that Gulzari had a hand in the purchase of the dal from this firm.