P. Ramdas and Another vs Emperor

Das, J.—The two petitioners have been convicted under the provisions of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 81, Defence of India Rules, and they have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four months each. The facts alleged against the two petitioners are the following. If appears that on 8th December 1948, 19 coolies were carrying loads of rice from the Koraput area of Orissa to a place in Madras. The two petitioners, it is alleged, were accompanying the 19 coolies. They were detected on the way by the supervising staff, and the coolies were taken to the police station. The person who had employed these coolies for the purpose of carrying rice to Madras was a man called N. Kamaraju. He was also put on trial along with the two petitioners, but was acquitted by the learned Magistrate. Originally, the 19 coolies were put on trial and were convicted. Subsequently, on their statements, the two petitioners along with their master Kamaraju were put on trial with the result indicated above. As I have stated above, the two petitioners have been convicted under the provisions of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 81, Defence of India Rules read with Rule 121 of the said rules.

On behalf of the petitioners it has, firstly, been contended that the charge related to an occurrence on 8th December 1943, whereas the date mentioned in the offence report shows that the offence was committed on 7th December 1943. We have examined the offence report, and it appears that in one of the columns the date of offence is mentioned as 8th December 1943, whereas in another column the date is mentioned as 7th December 1948. The evidence that was given in the case showed that the offence was committed on 8th December 1943, and the charge also related to that particular date. No grievance was made in the course of the trial regarding the date mentioned in the charge. Even in the grounds mentioned in the petition no point has been taken that the charge mentioned a wrong date. I am unable, therefore, to accept the contention that a wrong date was mentioned in the charge, and that even if a wrong date was mentioned in the charge, it caused any prejudice to the petitioners.

The petitioners are, however, entitled to succeed on another point. The evidence shows that the two petitioners were merely accompanying the coolies who were carrying the rice. The evidence of the coolies clearly shows that they were carrying rice at the instance of and under the orders of their employer N. Kamaraju, who has been acquitted by the learned Magistrate.

The learned lower appellate Court has observed in the judgment that it is rather illogical to accept the evidence of the accomplices against the two petitioners while rejecting it against the principal man, namely, Kamaraju, who had actually employed the coolies to carry rice from Orissa to Madras. As a matter of fact, all that is alleged against the two petitioners is that they were accompanying the coolies who were carrying rice from Orissa to Madras. If anybody is responsible for the export of rice from Orissa to Madras in contravention of the orders of the competent authority, it is N. Kamaraju who has unfortunately been acquitted by the learned Magistrate. The mere fact that the two: petitioners accompanied the coolies does not, in my opinion, bring them within the mischief as mentioned in Rule 121, Defence of India Rules.

It has also been contended before us that the coolies were in the position of accomplices, and, in the absence of any corroboration of their evidence, the conviction of the two petitioners cannot be sustained. It is unnecessary to determine in this case whether the coolies were in the position of accomplices or not. As I have stated above, all that is alleged against the petitioners is that they accompanied the coolies under the orders of their master N. Kamaraju.

That being the position, the conviction of the petitioners cannot be sustained.

The result, therefore, is that the application is allowed, and the conviction and sentences passed against the petitioners are set aside. The petitioners are acquitted and discharged from bail.

Manohar Lall, J.

I agree.