B KLINGANNA Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners 13 in number who were accused in the Court of the Second City Magistrate, Mysore, and who are all described as students, have been tried and convicted for an offence under Section 56(o), Mysore Police Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10/- each and in default to undergo S. I. for six days. The charge against them was that on 26-9-1952 at about 10-30 A.M. they were present at a meeting held to inaugurate the work of the Committee on Educational Reforms in Mysore in the Crawford Hall, Mysore City, and that there they behaved riotously and in a disorderly manner by shouting some slogans and throwing pamphlets and thereby caused a breach of the peace. The charge also mentioned that the accused's conduct amounted to offences by Clauses (o), (q) and (r) of Section 56. Though the learned Magistrate has not chosen to make any reference to the offences under Clauses (q) and (r) of Section 56 and does not say in his judgment whether he acquitted the accused of the offences under those clauses, there is no doubt at all that no case falling under those clauses has been made out against any of the accused. Section 56 (q) refers to wilfully pushing, pressing, hustling or obstructing any passenger in a street or disturbing the public peace or order by violent movements etc.; (r) refers to misbehaviour by using in any street any threatening, abusive or Insulting words or behaviour; and it is net clear why a charge under these clauses was at all put in the charge sheet. We are, therefore, only concerned to see whether an offence has been committed under Clause (o) which reads as follows:

(2.) It is contended by Mr. A. Shamanna, learned Counsel for the petitioners, that it has not been shown by the prosecution that Crawford Hall was A place of public resort & the meeting convened there was a public meeting. To decide this point as well as other points, which I will refer to later, it would have been of great advantage if the conveners of the meeting at least had been examined It is represented that persons were invited to attend the meeting and that even passes were issued. P. W. 1 says that he does not know whether any such invitations were issued. But in this Court Mr. Shamanna sought to produce a printed invitation card said to have been given to the invitees by Mr. J.B. Mallaradhya Director of Public Instruction. This cannot of course be treated as evidence at this stage as it has not been formally proved to have been issued by him. No notice by which the meeting was called is produced by the prosecution; nor is it shown that Crawford Hall is a place of public resort and that anybody can walk in and attend any meetings conducted there and that all meetings held there are public meetings. The learned Magistrate appears to think that that meeting was a public meeting because loud speaker arrangements had been made for the public outside to hear what was going on inside the hall. It is now quite common to have such loud speaker arrangements even for musical and other performances and in purely private meetings conducted in enclosed premises, and that would surely not make those meetings public meetings or those premises places of public resort.

(3.) It is not disputed that if the meeting was a private meeting and the Crawford Hall was not a place of public resort the Police could not have attended that meeting and sought to keep order in it without a special invitation by the conveners. Here again P. W. 1, the Police Inspector, says that he does not remember who asked him and the Sub-inspectors, P. Ws. 2 and 3, to be present inside the hall and to preserve peace there. It has been suggested in the course of cross-examination that several members and scouts were in charge of seating arrangements in the hall and were expected to maintain quiet and orderliness and that the Police had no place in the meeting. Here too unfortunately the prosecution by not summoning the conveners and the learned Magistrate by refusing to summon them as witnesses for the defence, has deprived both the prosecution and the accused from placing that important piece of evidence on record.