IN RE:N. RAMARATHNAM AND ANR. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is urged for the petitioners that there are various considerations which have to be borne in mind by the Chief Presidency Magistrate before deciding whether he should himself try a case of sedition or should commit it to this Court for being tried with the aid of a jury and that the Magistrate has not dealt with or considered them before passing the order sought to be revised. In the petition filed before the Magistrate, the main point urged was that the offending article being in Tamil, it would be conducive to the ends of justice if the case is to be tried by a jury, a majority of whom would be in a position to decide whether the article was one that would bring or attempt to bring into hatred or contempt or excite disaffection against the Government. He has not specifically dealt with this but merely stated that since most of the cases under Section 124 -A of the Indian Penal Code would be of the same nature as the case before him and since the law has not made the offence triable exclusively by a Court of Session, it was evident that such cases need not necessarily be tried always by a Sessions Court. The magistrate was perfectly justified in saying that since the Legislature has not directed that sedition cases should be tried solely by a Sessions Court, he would be entitled to try it. But then he has not dealt with the grounds urged in this particular case as to why they wanted the case to be tried in this Court with the aid of a jury. As urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, there are several circumstances which have to be taken into consideration before deciding the question whether this case is to be tried by this Court or by the Chief Presidency Magistrate himself. The main test in such case is the impression formed on the mind of a reader who knows the language in which the article is written. The mother tongue of the magistrate is Urdu and it is stated that he has passed a test in Tamil and that he has served in Tamil districts. I am not sure whether this knowledge of Tamil would be sufficient to enable him to understand the article with all its implications and to consider and decide what impression it is likely to create upon the Tamil reading public. Of course he would have the help of the translators, but having read the article myself, I think, it is a case in which there are a number of points which will have to be taken into consideration and those points will be better considered by persons who know Tamil and who have got a very good working knowledge of that language. A trial of this case with the aid of a jury will I think be advantageous not only from the point of view of the accused but also from the point of view of the prosecution.

(2.) APART from this, there is also the fact that it is a serious offence with which the accused are charged and it is stated that the paper has a wide circulation. These two grounds were said to constitute enough valid grounds for a case of sedition to be committed to a Court of Session at Bombay instead of being tried by the Presidency Magistrate there. (See Emperor v. Krishnaji Prabhakar : I.L.R. (1929) Bom. 611.) Emperor v. Hari Moreshwar, I.L.R. (1931) Bom. 61 was a case from the mofussil in which the question was whether the accused should be tried by a Magistrate or by a Sessions Judge, who would be ordinarily helped by assessors.

(3.) THE main considerations which ought to have weighed with the Chief Presidency Magistrate in this case are: