IN RE: ARUNACHALA GOUNDAN AND ORS. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is more convenient to deal with these cases by one and the same judgment as the facts are, to a large extent, interrelated and four petitioners are common in both. In Crl. R.C. No. 557, the petitioners have been convicted of the offence of assaulting a public servant in the discharge of his duties, an offence punishable under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code and the first petitioner is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five months and the others to. rigorous imprisonment for four months. In Crl. R.C. No. 558, the 57 petitioners of whom petitioners 1 to 4 are the same as in the previous case, have been convicted of an offence under Section 147, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four months each. In the case of petitioners who are common to both, the sentences are to run concurrently.

(2.) THE circumstances under which the petitioners were convicted are rather unusual and peculiar. In Crl. R.C. No. 557, the first information report dated 31st March, 1947, and the charge sheet were filed before the Stationary Sub -Magistrate, Namakkal, on 1st April, 1947, and the petitioners were produced from police custody in the Sub -Magistrate's Court late in the same evening, the trial started after 5 P.M. and ended at about 9 p.m. According to the first information report, the offence took place on 31st March, 1947, at 6 p.m. The arrest of the petitioners was in the early hours of the morning of 1st April, 1947, at the village of Siviyam -palayam and they were taken to the police station at Namakkal immediately there -after. As is seen from the judgment of the trial Court, the filing of the charge sheet the apprehension of the accused, the commencement of the trial, the close of the trial and the passing of sentence were all on the same day i.e., on 1st April, 1947. According to the same judgment the petitioners pleaded guilty of the offence and were convicted on their own plea.

(3.) THE learned Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Nammakkal, who heard the appeals in both these cases, states in his judgment that the trial was commenced immediately after the accused were produced before Court at the instance of the prosecution to whom the case was very important and urgent and as such the prosecution were very anxious to get on with the enquiry without any delay. The learned Magistrate, then proceeds to state that the petitioners, evidently had no objection to the course adopted as they did not want further time or ask for any adjournment. Nevertheless it is not stated that the petitioners prayed for the trial to be taken up immediately. Mere silence or acquiescence on the part of the petitioners in those circumstances, has been interpreted by the Magistrate as the consent of the petitioners for holding the trial during these out of Court hours. The learned Magistrate also holds that the petitioners had no time to consult or engage counsel.