Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1954 Supreme(Mad) 399

MADRAS HIGH COURT
RAMASWAMI
In re B.N.Ramakrishna Naidu
Versus
.
Criminal Revn. Cases Nos.343 and 344 of 1954 and Criminal Revn. Petns. Nos.321 and 322 of 1954 to revise the judgments of Fourth Presidency Magistrate of the Court of Presidency Magistrates G.T. Madras in C.C. Nos.7937 and 7941 of 1953
Decided On : 14 September, 1954

Advocates Appeared:
T.M. Chinnayya Pillai and K. Arunachala Sastri (in Cr. R.C. No.343) and K. Arunachala Sastri, (in Cr. R.C. No.344), for Petitioners; Muthanna for the State Prosecutor for the State (in both cases).

1. A classification made by a statute will not violate Art.14 of the Constitution of India if it is based on rational grounds and is not arbitrary or discriminatory. 2. The questioning of an accused person under S.342, Cr. P.C, does not violate Art.20(3) of the Constitution of India as the accused is not compelled to be a witness against himself.

Headnote:
The accused were convicted under S.65 of the Madras City Police Act, 1888 for being in possession of sandalwood billets without being able to satisfactorily account for their possession. The accused challenged the conviction on the grounds that S.65 of the Act violated Art.14 of the Constitution of India and that the questioning of the accused under S.342, Cr. P.C, violated Art.20(3) of the Constitution of India.
Fact of the Case:

The accused were found in possession of sandalwood billets, which were stolen from the Government Forest in Chittoor and the adjoining Tirumalai Devasthanam forest. The accused could not satisfactorily account for their possession of these sandalwood billets.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that S.65 of the Madras City Police Act, 1888 did not violate Art.14 of the Constitution of India as it was a reasonable classification based on rational grounds and that the questioning of the accused under S.342, Cr. P.C, did not violate Art.20(3) of the Constitution of India as the accused was not compelled to be a witness against himself.
Issues: 1. Whether S.65 of the Madras City Police Act, 1888 violated Art.14 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the questioning of the accused under S.342, Cr. P.C, violated Art.20(3) of the Constitution of India?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that S.65 of the Madras City Police Act, 1888 did not violate Art.14 of the Constitution of India as it was a reasonable classification based on rational grounds. The court observed that the classification was made on the basis of the fact that sandalwood logs were often stolen from the Government Forest in Chittoor and the adjoining Tirumalai Devasthanam forest and were being purchased and vended in Madras. The court held that this classification was reasonable as it was based on a real and substantial distinction between the City of Madras and the mofussil districts. 2. The court held that the questioning of the accused under S.342, Cr. P.C, did not violate Art.20(3) of the Constitution of India as the accused was not compelled to be a witness against himself. The court observed that the accused was not required to take an oath and that his answers could not be used as evidence against him. The court held that the purpose of S.342, Cr. P.C, was to enable the court to obtain an explanation from the accused regarding the circumstances appearing in evidence against him and that this did not amount to compelling the accused to be a witness against himself.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petitions and upheld the convictions and sentences of the lower court.

Judgement

ORDER : -These are two connected Revision Cases filed against the convictions and sentences of the learned 4th Presidency Magistrate, George Town, Madras in C.C. Nos.7937 and 7941 of 1953.

The convicted person in C.C. No.7937 of 1953 is B.N. Ramakrishna Naidu who was accused 5 therein and his Revision Case is No.343 of 1954 and the convicted person in the other case is Viswanathan Chetti whose Revision Case is 344 of 1954. B.N. Ramakrishna Naidu has been fined Rs.100/- and Viswanathan Chetti has been fined Rs.50/- and the sandalwood billets in both the cases have been ordered to be confiscated to the Government. The convictions were under S.65 City Police Act.

2. The short facts are: There were frequent thefts of sandalwood logs in the Government Forest in Chittoor and the adjoining Tirumalai Devasthanam forest. These thefts were taking place between May 1952 and November 1952. The Tirumalai Tirupathi Devasthanam had complained of these thefts to the Tirumalai Police Station In other words, the authorities were on the loop out for checking these thefts.

3. I need not point out that in the City of Madras, which is within 100 miles of the Chittoor District, there is a brisk trade in sandalwood log for the purpose of being sold as small billets for grinding sandalwood paste and for being powdered as sandalwood powder and for the purpose of cremation in the case of rich people.

4. There is no dispute that the accused in both these cases have been dealing in sandalwood as dealers in Madras.

5. In these circumstances a detailed pseudonymous typed petition signed by one Umapathi with address given therein was received by the Conservator of Forests. This petition gives complete details of the thefts in the Chittoor sandalwood forest, their transport to Madras and their being purchased and vended by Gurusami Nadar and B.N. Ramakrishna Naidu and how they were stocked in their premises and how if a sudden search was made these incriminating articles would be recovered. There cannot be the slightest doubt that this pseudonymous petition has emanated from a person intimately connected with Gurusami Nadar and Ramakrishna Naidu and represents what is vulgarly described as "inside dope". This petition was forwarded by the Conservator of Forests to the City Police for investigation and in fact it is not too much to say that the information given was so complete that all the police had to do was to arrange for a search and lay hands upon the goods. That is exactly what happened.

6. On 23-11-1952 P.W.1, Sri S. Ramaswami Mudaliar, Inspector of Police, C.I.D., Crime Branch, searched the shop of Gurusami Nadar running a shop under the name and style of A.V.M. Ramaswami Nadar and Co., No.13 Strotten Muthiah Mudali St., G.T., Madras. There he seized among other things three bags of sandalwood billets, weighing in all 258 lbs., kept in a room adjoining the kitchen in the back portion of the house, in the presence of both these Gurusami Nadar as well as B.N. Ramakrishna Naidu. The seizure was made under the Mahazar Ex. P-2. In regard t6 these billets two things were found then and there and concerning which there is no dispute that none of the billets contained the hammer mark of the Forest Department or any property mark as required by R.9 of the Madras Sandalwood Transit Rules; and secondly, the billets seized were very fresh and appeared to have been cleaned recently.

Guruswami Nadar produced a hammer bearing the letters "B.N.R." (M.O.2) and these marks were found on the billets. Ramakrishna Naidu produced certain bills but they could not be correlated to these fresh billets as they related to transactions some years prior to this seizure. Both the accused were put up for trial and Gurusami Nadar was discharged for two reasons. First of all, he produced his accounts and they bore out that this Guruswami Nadar had told the Police even at the time of the seizure viz., that these sandalwood billets belonged to Ramakrishna Naidu and that he was sellin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis