SANTOKH SINGH Vs. DELHI ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of a learned single Judge of the High Court of Delhi dated February 24, 1972 rejecting the appellant's revision petition under Ss. 439 and 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In that revision he had prayed that the charge framed against him by a Magistrate, First Class, New Delhi on July 3, 1969 under S. 9 of the Punjab Security of State Act (Punjab Act No. 12), 1953 (hereinafter called the Act) be quashed. The special leave petition originally came up for preliminary hearing before a bench of this Court on August 18, 1972 when notice to show cause was issued. On September 19, 1972 the hearing was again adjourned for a week to enable the petitioner's counsel to file a writ petition. It appears that no writ petition was filed but on September 26, 1972 this Court granted special leave on usual terms. The appeal was also directed to be heard on the existing paper book with liberty to the parties to file such additional documents as they wished to file from the record. The appeal was directed to be listed for hearing in the second week of January, 1973. Sometime in January, 1973 the appellant presented criminal miscellaneous petition No. 32 of 1973 seeking permission to urge additional grounds. In that application the constitutional validity of S. 9 of the Act was questioned. The said section, according to the averment in that petition, infringes the fundamental right of speech guaranteed under Art. 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution.

(2.) It is alleged by the prosecution that the appellant had addressed a public meeting of the employees of the Defence Department on October 9, 1968 and in the course of his speech he had incited the said employees to commit offences prejudicial to the security of the State or to the maintenance of public order. The Magistrate had, on perusal of the documents filed under S. 173, Cr. P. C. framed a charge against the appellant punishable under S. 9 of the Act. According to the judgment of the High Court the offending portion of the speech which had been delivered in Hindi reads as follows:

(3.) In this Court Shri S. C. Agarwal questioned the vires of S. 9 of the Act, contending that this section is violative of the fundamental right guaranteed by Art. 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution. No doubt, this point was not raised in the High Court and in this Court also it was specifically sought to be raised only in the subsequent applications presented in January, 1973 but as the speech in question was itself sought in para 5 of the petition for special leave to be protected by Art. 19 (1) (a) and as it was a pure question of law raising the constitutionality of S. 9 of the Act we permitted the counsel to raise it.