ARJUN SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application in revision raises a short but interesting question of law. The facts are not much in dispute. The applicant Sri Arjun Singh Bhadoria is a leader of the Praja Socialist Party, Etawah, and the other two applicants Sri Raja Ram and Sri Lal Ji are members of his party. In Jan. 1955, one Hub Lal was said to have been beaten by the police authorities of Jaswantnagar. The applicant, Sri Arjun Singh Bahadoria, brought him on a car to the residence of the Superintendent of Police of Etawah on 29-1-1955. At the direction of the Superintendent of Police he was admitted as an indoor patient in the Sadar Hospital, Etawah. It is however said that on 1-2-1955 Hub Lal was forcibly removed from the Sadar Hospital with the help and connivance of the police authorities. The applicant Sri Arjun Singh Bhadoria felt aggrieved at this and wrote a letter to the Sudpt. of Police on 2-2 1955 demanding that Hub Lal should be readmitted in Sadar Hospital and that the Police Authorities concerned should be adequately punished. In that letter he expressed his intention to resort to hunger strike at the residence of the Superintendent of Police if his damands were not fulfilled. On 3-2-1955 at 10 a.m. Sri Arjun Singh Bhadoria entered the compound of the bungalow of the Superintendent of Police, Etawah and took his seat in the visitors' shed and started his hunger strike, the other Appellants Sri Lal ji and Sri Raja Ram accompanied him and they too took their seats in the same shed. The Superintendent of Police naturally felt annoyed. The applicants were asked to remove themselves from the compound of the bungalow but they persisted in remaining there and Sri Arjun Singh continued his hunger strike. They were subsequently informed that Hub Lal had been readmitted in the hospital and that the complaint against the police officials was being enquired into. They were told that their presence in the visitors' shed was causing annoyance to the Superintendent of Police. They however refused to leave the place. They were arrested at 4 a.m. in the night between the 3/4-2-1955, after they had been there for 18 hours and were subsequently prosecuted Under Sec. 447, Penal Code for criminal trespass.

(2.) The applicants did not deny the fact that they had entered the compound of the Supdt, of Police Etawah at about 10 a.m. on 3-2-1955 and had occupied the visi tors' shed till they were arrested at 4 a.m. in the night between the 3/4-2-1955. Sri Arjun Singh also admitted that he was on hunger strike during his 18 hours' stay in the visitors' shed. He however contended that he had resorted to hunger strike for self purification at the direction of his inner voice and that he had a right to do so because it was necessary for him to protest against the unjustified conduct of the police. He said that he had no intention to intimidate, annoy or insult the Superintendent of Police. He added that the persons present near the visitors' shed had told him that no one felt annoyed, insulted or intimidated by the hunger strike which he had undertaken. The other two applicants admitted having stayed with Sri Arjun Singh in the visitors' shed but said that they had gone there to make a complaint to the Superintendent of Police.

(3.) Three witnesses, Sri S. U. Zuberi, City Kotwal, Mushtaq Ahmad, Circle Inspector and Jogindrapal Singh, another Circle Inspector of Police were produced in support of the prosecution case. The applicants examined Sri Debi Dayal Dubey, Sri Amar Nath Pandey and Sri Balram Dubey in their defence. The learned Magistrate who tried them summarily accepted the prosecution case that the applicants had trespassed into the visitors' shed of the bungalow of the Supdt, of Police with the intention of annoying and intimidating him. He therefore convicted the applicants Under Sec. 447, Penal Code and sentenced each of them to three months' rigorous imprisonment. The applicants preferred an appeal to the Civil and Sessions Judge Etawah who upheld their conviction but reduced the sentence of Sri Arjun Singh Bhadoria to one months' rigorous imprisonment and those of Sri Lal Jit and Raja Ram to two weeks rigorous imprisonment. With this modification he dismissed the appeal.