ALI SHER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPLICANT Ali Sher was charged before a Magistrate First Class, Moradabad, for having heaped abuses on India and extolled Pakistan in the context of the then India -Pakistan war and thereby committing a prejudicial act within the meaning of Rule 35(6)(e) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962. He was found guilty, convicted and sentenced by the trial Magistrate to nine months' rigorous imprisonment Under Rule 41(5) of the aforesaid rules. On appeal the learned Civil and Sessions Judge, Moradabad, upheld the conviction of the Applicant but substituted the sentence of imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 300/ - in default of which he was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

(2.) APPLICANT came up in revision which was first listed before a learned single Judge of this Court who referred it for the consideration of a larger Bench.

(3.) THE other argument raised by the Learned Counsel is that the Applicant is alleged to have used abusive language in respect of India and not towards the Government established by law in India. It cannot, therefore, be held that he committed any prejudicial act within the meaning of Rule 35(6)(e) of the aforesaid rules even if it is held, for which it is contended there is no justification, that the aforesaid abusive language was capable of bringing into hatred or contempt the country as a whole. It is urged further that the words of a statute are to be given their ordinary dictionary meaning and a penal provision has to be construed strictly. In support of this proposition reliance was placed by the Learned Counsel on the case of London Rubber Company v. Durex Products Incorporated and Anr., 1963 SC 1882 and on the cases of M.V. Joshi v. M.V. Shimpi, 1961 SC 1494 and Niharendu v. Emperor, 1942 FC 22. In this light Learned Counsel contends the abusive language used by the Applicant in respect of India does not fall within the terms of Rule 35 of the Defence of India Rules and the conviction and sentence of the Applicant are not sustainable in law. Learned Counsel has also challenged the findings of fact arrived at by the courts below that the Applicant did utter the words attributed to him.