1 SALT REVENUE DEPARTMENT FOR TH# OFFICIAL YEAR 1894-95,
2 ?
3 with his captor secured the latter’s sword, but was prevented PENAL ACTION ort
4 p 2 p HE
5 from using it by the inspector’s timely arrival on the scene,
6 The third man also was arrested, but ina second struggle with
7 his captor escaped into an Indiay corn field and could not
8 afterwards be found. The two men secured were committed
9 for trial, but, though their guilt seemed quite established, the
10 Magistrate released them, on the ground that being men of inde-
11 pendent territory they -were ignorant of the law prohibiting
12 the import of Kohat salt. All the facts pointed to a fyll
13 knowledge of this prohibition, and the Deputy Commissioner
14 of the district was addressed on the matter. The Magistrate
15 then admitted that he had fallen into an error of judgment.
16 The seizures made on the North Hazara frontier line are
17 much fewer and less important than in previous years, and the
18 Assistant Commissioner reports that he believes Kohat salt
19 to be very little used in the Hazéra district and beyond it now.
20 Delhi Salt Sources.--One important case occurred. During
21 June 1894 the Superintendent of Mubarikpur received informa-
22 tion that salt had been stolen from the Sadrana salt source,
23 and on visiting an adjacent village he obtained possession of
24 a bag containing 19% seers of salt. Inquiry proved that this.
25 salt had been stolen from the Sadrana salt source by an acting
26 peon of the department, who was prosecuted, convicted and
27 punished with a fine of 50 rupees and two months’ rigorous
28 imprisonment. In the course of inquiry a counterfeit salt stamp,
29 modelled in clay, was found concealed in a hut in the salt
30 works, and one of the peons posted at the works deserted to
31 escape consequences. :
32 Sambhar Division.—Out of the few cases of seizures that
33 occurred one was acase of theft of three maunds of salt. It is
34 not known howmany men were really implicated, but one man
35 was arrested and fined 20 rupees and also sentenced to .two
36 months’ rigorous imprisonment. There were grounds in the case
37 for suspecting that one or more peons of the establishment had
38 abetted the removal of the salt. Another case was that ofa
39 peon of the establishment who was detected in the act of steal-
40 ing 34 seers of salt, his wife being the agent employed for carry-
41 ing it away. He received three months’ rigorous imprisonment
42 and was fined 20 rupees. Finally a temporary peon was caught
43 stealing five seérs of salt and he on conviction was fined 15 rupees.
44 The occurrence of so many cases implicating the establish-
45 ment in this manner is unsatisfactory and reflects on the disci-
46 pline and control maintained by the Assistant Commissioner
47 and his Superintendents.
48 Pachbadra Division.—Only one case of any importance
49 occurred during the year. A Meghwal stole by night into a
50 pit, and carried off aload of salt, but he was seen by the man
51 on guard and seized and got three months’ rigorous imprison-
52 ment.
53 Upper Division, Internal Branch.—Only one case of any
54 note occurred during the year. Some salt having been seized
55 in a crude saltpetre factory in the Mainpuri district, the estab-
56 lishment was assaulted and two of the peons of the party were
57 somewhat severely hurt. The crude saltpetre manufact urer
58 was imprisoned rigorously for two months and fined 50 rupees,
59 and three of the assailants of the establishment were each pun
60 ished at the sessions with six months’ rigorous imprisonment
61 { 65 )
62 DEPARTMENT,