- (1.)THE two applicants Ram Chand and Rang Lal Daga are being tried by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Gwalior, for an offence under Section 7 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946 read with Clause 24 of the Cotton Textiles (Control) Order 1946. The prosecution case against them, briefly stated, is that on receiving secret reports that the J. C. Mills Ltd. Gwalior were selling cloth manufactured by them above the control price through their selling agents Messrs. Ram Chandra Jagannath, Mr. Niranjan Das, Deputy Director, Enforcement, New Delhi came to Gwalior on the afternoon of 27. 2. 52, with a party consisting of Pyare Lal, Inder Lal and some officers of the Enforcement Department with a view to find out by laying m 'trap' whether the Mills did, or did not, sell cloth above the control price. It is said that on his arrival at Gwalior Mr. Niranjan Das posing himself as Ram Lal a Munim of a firm Messrs Babu Badan Singh of Pahasu contacted the applicant Ram Chand of the firm Messrs. Ram Chandra Jagannath, tha selling agents of the Mills and negotiated with him the purchase of eleven bales of shirting cloth at a price 45 p. c. in excess of the ex-mill price; that on the next day that is on 28. 2. 52, Niranjan Das approached Mr. Pendharkar the City Magistrate Lashkar in connection with the proceedings for noting the numbers of the currency notes to be handed over to the applicants in payment of the price, the recovery of notes and the arrest of the applicants and, that, thereafter he again met the applicants Ram Chandra to settle the deal. It is alleged that, when Ram Chandra refused to make a reduction in the price on Niranjan Das's insistence, the applicant Ram Chandra and one Kanhaiya Lal, who is also am accused person in this case took Niranjandas to the applicant Rang Lal Daga, who is the Deputy Secretary and Deputy General Manager of the Sales Department of the J. C. Mills and, that Ranglal Daga also In spite of the request by Niranjandas to reduce the price, demanded a price 45 per cent above the ex-mill price for the sale of the bales of shirting cloth. The deal was accordingly settled at the excess price and. on 29. 2. 52, Niranjandas again went to the Mill premises for completing the deal and paying the price. The prosecution alleged that on this day also Niranjandas met Rang Lal Daga and he directed. Ram Chandra to have the necessary document prepared and receive both the ex-mill price and the black marketing premium'. Soon after the price was paid by Niranjandas in currency notes and while the amount was being counted by Kanhaiyalal, Mr. Pendharker the City Magistrate and other members of the raiding party arrived on the scene, seized the money and prepared a recovery memo. It is said that Bs. 29675/- which had been paid by Niranjandas as the price of the cloth were recovered from the possession of the applicant Ram Chandra. Mr. Niranjandas then lodged a report with the police station Lashkar on 29. 2. 52 at about 11. a. m. . The applicant Rang Lai and Ram Chandra were arrested on 29. 2. 52.
(2.)THE petitioners then applied for bail to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate which was refused. They then applied to the Sessions Judge, but as they were unsuccessful also in that Court, they have made the present applications under Section 498 Cr. P. C. The applications have been resisted by the State.
(3.)MR. Tara Chand learned Counsel appearing for the applicant Rang Lal Daga argues that the grant of bail to the applicant is a matter which under Section 498 of the Code is entirely in the discretion of this Court and, that in determining whether this discretion should be exercised in favour of the accused, the question for consideration is not whether prima facie there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is or is not guilty of the offence charged and whether he has offered any explanation of the allegations made against him; it is whether on a consideration of the nature of the charge, the nature of the evidence and the character and the standing of the accused, there is a probability of the accused person appearing in the court to take the trial. It is said that the only evidence against Rang Lai is the statement of Niranjandas that Rang Lai refused to accede to a request for the reduction of the price; that there is no evidence that any money was recovered from Ranglal or that he signed any document with regard to the sale and that the prosecution witnesses are mainly Niranjandas and the members of his raiding party which he brought from Delhi and that they are not the type of persons who could be tampered with by the accused and further that the prosecution failed to show in the courts below that there was any likelihood of the accused Bang Lai absconding. Learned Counsel for the applicant proceeded to argue that in the absence of any danger of the applicants absconding, tampering with the prosecution witnesses the applicant is entitled to ask this Court to exercise its discretion in his favour and to admit him to bail and that bail cannot be refused to him on the ground that the offence with which the accused is charged is one of highly anti-social character, for to do so would be to prejudge the guilt of the accused and withhold bail merely as a punishment. On behalf of the applicant Ram Chandra Mr. Puttu Lal Dube, while adopting the arguments of Mr. Tara Chand contended that the prosecution has no evidence to show that it was his client, who was legally competent to enter into a contract for the sale of the eleven bales and that he did in fact conclude the contract of the sale or that any money was received by him as the purchase price.