The Public Prosecutor vs Natesa Pillai

Lakshmana Rao, J.—This is an appeal by the Provincial Government against the acquittal of the respondent of an offence u/s 25, Clause (2)

(b) of the Emigration Act.

The respondent is the proprietor of M.S. Natesa Pillai Company, Cigar Manufacturers, Trichinopoly and the undisputed facts are that on 2nd

July, 1937, ten persons described as cigar workmen went to P.W. 4, the clerk of the forwarding agents of Natesa Pillai Company at Negapatam

with Ex. C the letter written under the orders of the respondent requesting the forwarding agents to make the workers start comfortably to Klang

to which they were bound. It appears from the letter that a sum of Rs. 250 had been sent to the forwarding agents the previous day though it is

also mentioned that the workmen were bringing with them money for their steamer fare and expenses, and P.W. 4 arranged with the deck

passenger broker for tickets. The requirements of Section 16 of the Emigration Act were not complied with and the workmen were detected and

questioned at the wharf. It transpired that they were assisted by the forwarding agents at the request of the respondent and Ex. C the letter came to

light. The respondent had infringed the provisions of the Act previously and by Ex. D the memorandum, an explanation was demanded from him.

Ex. D-1 the reply was received and it was alleged that the workmen requested the respondent to send them to his shop at Klang. They were told

that hands were not needed but they persisted saying that they would go at their own expense and work in his shop if work was found or in other

shops, and begged him to write to his agents to help them to secure tickets. So he wrote Ex. C the letter to the forwarding agents and they

arranged for the tickets.

The prosecution of the respondent u/s 25, Clause (2)(b) of the Emigration Act was sanctioned in due course by the Protector of Emigrants, and

the case was restricted during the trial to three of the workmen, namely, Periyanayagam, Paramasivan and Manickam. The respondent pleaded

that Ex. C was written by his manager without his consent or knowledge, and denied having assisted or attempted to assist the workmen to

emigrate. He pleaded further that those workmen were emigrants as defined in Section 2, Clause (1)(b) of the Emigration Act and Periyanayagam

as his sole witness supported him. But the defence case was disbelieved by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the respondent was sentenced u/s

25, Clause (2)(b) of the Act to pay a fine of Rs. 100 with simple imprisonment for three months in default. An appeal was taken to the Sessions

Judge, and he too disbelieved the case of the respondent that the workmen were emigrants as defined in Section 2, Clause (1)(b) of the Act and

that Ex. C was not written at his instance. The Sessions Judge further held that the workmen wanted to depart by sea out of British India for the

purpose of and with the intention of working for the respondent but acquitted him because there was no evidence of an agreement between the

parties and the respondent cannot consequently be said to have assisted them to emigrate contrary to the provisions of the Emigration Act.

The case of the respondent that the particular workmen were emigrants as defined in Section 2, Clause (1)(b) of the Emigration Act was rightly

disbelieved, and it is beyond dispute that they are skilled workers as defined in the Act. The permission of the local Government for assisting

skilled workers to emigrate was not obtained as required by Section 16 of the Act and so far as is material Section 25, Clause (2)(b) provides that

whoever except in conformity with the provisions of the Act assists or attempts to assist any person to emigrate or attempt to emigrate or to leave

any place for the''-purpose of emigrating shall be punishable with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees. That there was an attempt to

emigrate in this case cannot be disputed and it is obvious that the respondent attempted or assisted those workers to attempt to emigrate to Klang.

The workers are not related to him and they wanted to go to Klang for working for hire. An agreement to work for hire is not necessary, for an

offence u/s 25, Clause (2)(b) of the Act and it is unnecessary to consider whether as found by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate the workers must

have been engaged by the respondent to work in his shop at Klang. The guilt of the respondent u/s 25, Clause (2)(b) admits of no doubt and the

order of acquittal cannot be sustained. It is therefore set aside and the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate convicting the respondent u/s 25,

Clause (2)(b) and sentencing him to pay a fine, of Rs. 100 with simple imprisonment for three months in default is restored.