Baleshwar Bhagat vs Emperor

Shearer, J.—The petitioner, Baleshwar Bhagat, was arrested on 24th February 1944, at the Bhagalpur railway station by two Sub-Inspectors of Police. He was then about to board a train for Bolepur, in the Province of Bengal; and as he had a season ticket in his possession, it may be presumed that he had been in the habit of making this journey frequently. The reason why the two Sub-Inspectors took him into custody was that they had reason to suspect that he had been exporting goods to Bengal without a permit, and more particularly that he intended to take with him on this occasion to Bolepur five boxes which contained sugar and ghee and other goods which he was not entitled to export except under a permit which admittedly he did not possess. The boxes were apparently lying on the platform outside the compartment of the train into which the petitioner was about to get.

Immediately after he was apprehended the petitioner is said to have offered the Sub-Inspectors a sum of Rs. 100 if they would take no action against him. For this he was prosecuted and convicted u/s 214, Penal Code, and it is against this conviction that the present application has been preferred. The petitioner was also tried and convicted under Rule 81(4), Defence of India Rules, and when the learned Additional Sessions Judge heard the appeal, out of which this application arises, this conviction was subsisting. Shortly afterwards, however, the conviction was set aside on appeal by the learned Sessions Judge. The point taken by Mr. Safdar Imam, who appears in support of the application, was therefore, not a point that could have been taken in the lower appellate Court, Mr. Safdar Imam contends that, in the view of the matter taken by the learned Sessions Judge, no offence under Rule 81(4), Defence of India Rules, was committed and that, in consequence, even if his client did offer money to the Sub-Inspectors of Police he did not commit an offence u/s 214, Penal Code.

This argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is supported by decisions of Division Benches of the High Courts of Madras and Bombay: Queen-Empress v. Saminatha (91) 14 Mad. 400 and Emperor v. Sanalal Lallubhai (13) 37 Bom. 658. In the latter decision it was pointed out that a Court dealing with a charge u/s 214, Penal Code, is not entitled to question or review the correctness of the decision of another Court acquitting a person charged with having committed the offence which the person before it is charged with having attempted to conceal. I respectfully agree with these decisions and have no doubt myself but that they are correct. The petitioner did not have the sum of Rs. 100 on his person and did not actually produce and offer any money to the Sub-Inspectors. Nor, after he realised that they were determined to prosecute him, did he return to the police-station or make any further attempt to seduce them from their duty.

In these circumstances, it was, I think a pity that two separate prosecutions were instituted. The better course would have been to adduce evidence of what the petitioner said to the Sub-Inspectors at the other trial where he was charged with an offence under Rule 81(4), Defence of India Rules, and ask the Court to take his conduct into consideration in awarding sentence. His conduct in offering money to the Sub-Inspectors was really mainly of importance as going to show that the boxes in fact belonged to him. If this evidence had been before the learned Sessions Judge, and the learned Sessions Judge had thought it was true, the learned Sessions Judge could scarcely have taken the view of the matter which he did, namely, that the boxes really belonged to some Marwari who had been seen near about them and that the Sub-Inspectors made a mistake in arresting the petitioner.

I must say that I entertain a good deal of doubt as to the correctness of the decision of the learned Sessions Judge and if the Provincial Government had preferred an appeal against the order of acquittal, I should have been disposed to adjourn the hearing of the present application. But, as matters stand, I am bound, following the decision in Emperor v. Sanalal Lallubhai (13) 37 Bom. 658, to proceed on the assumption that no offence under Rule 81(4), Defence of India Rules, was committed, and, therefore, to set aside this conviction and sentence u/s 214, Penal Code.

The petitioner is discharged from his bail.