VASU DEO OJHA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition, which is under Article 226 of the Constitution and also under Section 491, Criminal Procedure Code, has asked a writ of habeas corpus against the opposite parties, who are the State of Uttar Pradesh, the Collector of Mathura, Senior Superintendent of Police Mathura and Superintendent, District Jail, Mathura, in connection with their contention in Mathura jail. The facts giving rise to it are briefly these: A scheme for the consolidation of holdings has been started in Mathura Tehsil under the provisions of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1954. A certain section of the public does not seem to be favourably disposed of towards the working of the scheme. Accordingly some of the supporters of that view announced on 8-7-1957 a public meeting to be held at two O'clock that afternoon. The purpose of the meeting was to invite the attention of the authorities and the Government to certain hardships which the petitioners alleged were being caused to the kisans, particularly in the way the scheme was being worked. Another meeting for the same date, it is further alleged, was announced by the District Congress Committee of Mathura which again was to be held at the same time in the same village. This was to toe addressed by the Labour Minister, Sri Acharya Jugul Kishore. According to the petitioners the meeting on behalf of the District Congress Committee was announced subsequently, i. e., after they had announced the programme of their own meeting, it is stated that while the petitioners' meeting was in progress a sub-inspector of police arrived at the scene with a number of constables and asfced the persons collected there as to why they were causing disturbance near the place where the Hon'ble Minister was addressing the meeting which as we have already noticed, was arranged by the District Congress Committee. It is also alleged that soon after the Sub-Inspector arrested 40 persons, out of whom were the 13 petitioners, acting under Section 151 Cr. P. C. After their arrest these persons were taken in the first instance, to the police station and, later, to collectorate Mathura where, it is further alleged, they were kept waiting outside the courtroom until next evening, July 9, 1957 was a public holiday. But the Sub-Divisional Magistrate attended his court that evening at about 4-30 p.m. whereupon the arrested persons were produced before him. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate then drew up an order purporting to be under Section 112, Cr. P. C. against all the 40 persons and at the same time sent them to jail. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the procedure provided in Sub-section (3) of Section 117 Cr. P. C. was not complied with and that their detention is illegal. Also according to them in proceedings under Chap. 8, Cr. P. C. a Magistrate has no authority to remand persons proceeded against to jail custody except under and in accordance with Subsection (3) of Section 117, Cr. P. C. and since no such proceeding was taken against them in this case their detention is illegal. Their contention also is that the Magistrate before he makes an order remanding the persons proceeded against to jail custody under this subsection must previously find that immediate measures are necessary for the prevention of the breach of the peace or disturbance of public tranquillity and further that he must record his reasons in writing. If he fails in this necessary step the order, if any, made under Sub-section (3) of Section 117 Cr. P. C. will itself be illegal and unable to sustain any detention.

(2.) The petitioners have also challenged the proceedings started against them under Section 117 Cr. P. C. alleging that though an order under Section 112 Cr. P. C. was made by the Magistrate he neither read it out to them nor properly explained its contents which was necessary in view of Section 113 Cr. P. C. Hence also they challenged the legality of their detention.

(3.) On behalf of the opposite parties it is not admitted that the opposite parties had any information or knowledge about the alleged announcement by the petitioners of any public meeting for July 8, 1957. According to them the petitioners along with some others at first went on the date aforesaid to the office of the Assistant Consolidation Officer at Farraha with a view to commit breach of the peace and from there they proceed to the temple where the meeting on behalf of the District Congress Committee had been organised and that they wanted forcibly to prevent and disturb the peaceful conduct of the meeting which was actually in progress under the presidentship of Acharya Jugul Kishore, Minister for Labour and Social Welfare. Sri Kartar Singh, sub-inspector, who was present at the place, noticed that the petitioners were in a very threatening mood. He accordingly asked them to be peaceful and not to use force and violence but they never paid any heed to his request. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, who also was present at the meeting, being the Settlement Officer Consolidation, similarly appealed to them but in vain. It is then stated that Sri Kartar Singh thereupon acting under Section 151, Cr. P. C. arrested the petitioners along with other persons at 4.30 p.m. Next morning all the arrested persons were taken to Mathura and there produced before Sri U. S. Narain, Addl. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, at about 1 p.m., i.e., within 24 hours of their arrest. The Magistrate then drew up a notice under Section 112, Cr. P. C. against all the arrested persons and read it out and explained to them. He also obtained their signatures and obtained thumb marks on the back of the notice in token. of its having been read and explained to them.