Coll 28/67 ‘Persia. Annual Reports, 1932–’ [‎178v] (356/644)

dossier was then returned to Zahidan with instructions that the case should be
tried by the customs authorities themselves {i.e., by the prosecutors), ihe customs
inevitably convicted Bagh Singh and fined him 67,000 rials (£837 10s.), with
the alternative of a day’s imprisonment for every 10 rials of the fine. He
appealed against his conviction, and the Birjand court acquitted him for the
second time in January 1936, the court declaring in its judgment that “it is
evident from a perusal of the relevant file and its contents that there is no truth
in the accusation and that it was merely a mistake.” Nevertheless, the customs
again appealed, Bagh Singh being still held in custody, and he was acquitted for
the fourth time in all in March. The customs appealed again, and Bagh Singh
was acquitted for the fifth time in May by the Meshed Court of Appeal. Only
then was he released, after spending eight months in prison. He wisely left the
country without further delay, and it was learnt after his departure that the still
dissatisfied customs had taken the case to Tehran, where the court acquitted
Bagh Singh for the sixth time towards the end of the year. Tn order finally to
establish his innocence, it was thus necessary for Bagh Singh to be tried seven
times and to be acquitted six, the only occasion when he was convicted being when
the trial was conducted by his prosecutors.
119. During the course of the proceedings Bagh Singh was naturally given
such assistance as was possible by His Majesty’s Legation and consular officers.
But the whole action of the customs authorities seemed so scandalous that it was
decided that the matter could not be allowed to rest with Bagh Singh’s acquittal.
As soon as it was learned that he was safely out of the country, His Majesty’s
Minister therefore brought the whole history of the case to the notice of the
Minister for Foreign Affairs and requested that a most thorough enquiry should
be made. No reply had been received by the end of the year.
(10) Foreign Exchange Difficulties.
120. The passage at the beginning of March of a law and regulations for
the control of foreign exchange involved much hardship for a considerable
number of British subjects. The regulations provided that foreigners employed
in public establishments might remit up to 50 per cent, of their salary abroad, and
that persons engaged in direct commercial relations with public establishments
might transfer their profits up to 10 per cent, of their total transactions. These
facilities were, however, of no assistance to many British subjects, and more
especially Indians, who suddenly found themselves unable to remit abroad even
the smallest sums for the education of their children, the support of dependents
or for such purposes as the payment of insurance premiums. Furthermore, the
introduction of exchange restrictions, following on the increasing monopolisation
of foreign trade by the Government, proved the last straw for a number of
Indians, who decided to liquidate their businesses and leave the country, but
found that they were unable to remove their capital.
121. When some experience had been gained of the working of the Exchange
Control Commission, two appeals were accordingly made to the Ministry for
Foreign Affairs—
(a) That the commission should be instructed to issue freely to British
subjects permits to acquire small sums in foreign exchange for the
maintenance of dependents abroad, &c.; and
(b) That sympathetic consideration should be given to applications from
British subjects who desired to leave the country to liquidate their
rial balances either by converting them into foreign currency or by
exporting Iranian produce without the obligation laid down in the
law of having to sell the proceeds to the Exchange Control
Commission.
The Ministry for Foreign Affairs took a considerable time to answer these
requests. Their e\entual reply to (a) consisted of a recapitulation of the facilities
specifically provided in the regulations, with an added statement that persons
engaged in comnieice (without mention of public establishments) would be allowed
to transfer their pi ofits to some extent, but that the grant of foreign exchange
for othei pui poses would contravene the object of the law. As to (&). the Ministry