EMPEROR Vs. NANA SHAHU SONAVANE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference made by the Sessions Judge at Poona raises a novel and interesting point as to the meaning of the word "procession" in R. 56 of the Defence of India Rules, 1939. The two accused were charged with going in procession to Laxmi Road Chowk via the City Post Office at Poona in contravention of a notification issued by the Government under Rule 56(1). The notification was to the effect that no procession shall be held in any place in the Province of Bombay except with the previous permission in writing of the District .Magistrate, and no person shall take part in such procession in respect of which such permission had not been obtained. Under Rule 56 (1) : The Provincial Government may, for the purpose of securing the defence of British India, the public safety, the maintenance of public order or the efficient prosecution of war by general or special order, prohibit, restrict or impose conditions upon, the holding of or taking part in public processions, meetings or assemblies.

(2.) UNDER Sub-rule (2) any procession, which was open to the public or any class or portion of the public, whether held in a public or private place and whether admission thereto was restricted by the issue of tickets or otherwise, shall be deemed to be a public procession, and Sub-rule (4) provides for the punishment.

(3.) THE only point on which he feels a doubt is whether such a body marching side by side would form a procession, because under the dictionary meaning it must march in orderly succession. THE question, therefore, is whether marching in succession or rows is an absolutely necessary ingredient of a procession. Although in the Oxford English Dictionary, on which the learned Sessions Judge has relied, a procession is described as a body of persons going along in orderly succession in a formal or ceremonial way, it is not so described in another standard work, viz. Webster's Dictionary, where it is stated to mean "that which is moving onward in an orderly, stately or solemn manner; especially a train of persons advancing in order." Thus although it applies especially to a train of persons, it is not restricted to it but includes all bodies moving forward in an orderly manner. To the same effect is the meaning expounded in the Universal Dictionary of the English Language by Dr. H.C. Wyld, which the learned Sessions Judge has quoted in his judgment. I may lastly refer to the description of a procession in Encyclopaedia Britannica, 14th edn., Vol. XVIII, p. 543. THEre it is described as "an organised body of people advancing in a formal or ceremonial manner," and it is further observed that that definition covers a wide variety of such progress. Orderly succession is not mentioned as its essential ingredient. It will thus appear that it is not the unanimous opinion among the expounders of its meaning, that a procession must in all cases proceed in orderly succession, although they all agree that it means a body of persons marching forward in a more or less formal or organised way. When they are marching in this way, they may all proceed in one line or in rows and that would depend upon their number as well as the breadth of the road. THEre seems to be no reason to regard walking in rows as a sine qua non of a procession. It is only one though it is the most frequent mode of going in a procession. If, for example, ten persons move forward with unity of purpose and in a formal manner, it does not stand to reason that they should be regarded as a procession only if they all walk in successive rows and not if they walk together in one row on a broad thoroughfare. THE question of successive rows comes in only if a large number is regarded as a necessary feature of a procession. But if, as the learned Sessions Judge is himself inclined to think, two persons can possibly form a body, and therefore a procession, the element of orderly succession ceases to be its essential requisite. On the facts of the case it is clear that both the accused were proceeding presumably together in a line with the common intention of making a demonstration, and I, therefore, think that they must be taken as marching in procession within the meaning of that word in Rule 56.