NARAYANAN NAIR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused, a Pointsman attached to the Elathur railway Station, was charged with the offence under R. 41 (1) (a), (c) and (d)read with R. 41 (5) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, hereinafter called the Rules. THE charge was that on 20th September 1965 at about 6 p. m the accused committed a prejudicial act by uttering the following words in a provision store in Elathur: and that the utterance was made with the intention to cause alarm and fear in the minds of the public, and to create feelings of enmity and hatred between different classes of persons in India , and to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law. At that time when the accused said these words P. Ws. 1, 2 and others were engaged in reading 'mathrubhoomi'. THE Magistrate found that the accused has committed a prejudicial act, and convicted him under R. 41 (1) (a)punishable under R. 41 (5) of the Rules, and sentenced him to undergo R. I. for three months. THE accused filed an appeal. THE appellate court dismissed the appeal.

(2.) IN this revision petition counsel for the petitioner raised two points before me. He argued that the utterance in question was not a prejudicial act within meaning of R. 35 (6) (e) or (h ). Rule (35) (6) (e) and (h) are as follows: "35 (6). ' Prejudicial act' means any act which is intended or is likely (e) to bring into hatred or contempt, or to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law in INdia; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (h) to cause fear or alarm to the public or to any section of the public;". As to the question whether the utterance was intended to cause fear or alarm to the public or any section of the public, the finding of the appellate court is that no fear or alarm was actually caused to the four or five persons who were then in the store. On looking at the utterance and the context in which it was made, and the number of persons who heard it, I am not inclined to think that the accused intended to cause alarm to the public or to a section of the public or that the utterance was likely to cause fear or alarm to the public or to any section thereof. The appellate court considered the utterance a prejudicial act only for the reason that it was likely to cause alarm and fear in the public and to excite hatred and contempt towards the Government. The witnesses said that they feared that Elathur would be bombed just as Ambala Military Hospital was bombed. The fact of bombing of the Military Hospital at Ambala appeared in all the newspapers, I do not think that the statement that more persons died in the bombing of Ambala Military Hospital than were made known to public, was likely in the context to cause any fear to the persons who listened to the utterance. The finding that no fear was caused to the persons listening to the utterance may be indicative that no fear or alarm was likely to be caused. If reasonable men on hearing the utterance would not be put to any fear or alarm by it one cannot say that the utterance was likely to cause fear or alarm to the public or any section thereof. The question to be asked and answered is whether the ordinary common man of the common law would be likely to be put to fear or alarm by the utterance. I do not think that the utterance had any such tendency.