EMPEROR Vs. SADASHIV NARAYAN BHALERAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the Government of Bombay against an order made by the First Class Magistrate, Jalgaon City, acquitting the accused Sadashiv Narayan Bhalerao. The accused had been charged under Rule 38(5) of the Defence of India Rules, 1939, for having on January 26, 1943, made, published and distributed copies of a leaflet which contained prejudicial reports within the meaning of Rule 34(7) read with Rule 34(6)(e) and (g) of the Defence of India Rules, 1939.

(2.) THE accused admitted having published and distributed copies of the leaflet, but contended that in doing so he had committed no offence. He alleged that he had published the leaflet on behalf of the Hindi Communist Party which had been making efforts to check the activities of Fifth Columnists in the country, to dissuade people from committing acts of sabotage, to prevent antisocial activities such as hoarding of food-grains, and to urge the people to take part in the defence of the country against the Japanese.

(3.) RULE 34(6)(e) which defines the offence for which the accused is principally charged is in practically the same language as Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, Section 124A runs as follows : Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings oil attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, Her Majesty or the Crown Representative or the Government established by law in British India, or British Burma, shall be punished with transportation for life or any shorter term, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine. The first Explanation to the section says " The expression ' disaffection' includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity. " RULE 38(1) provides that no person shall, without lawful authority or excuse do any prejudicial act, and "prejudicial act" is defined in RULE 34(6)(e) as any act which is intended or is likely to bring into hatred or contempt, or to excite disaffection towards, His Majesty or the Crown Representative or the Government established by law in British India or in any other part of His Majesty's dominions. The offences dealt with by the two provisions are therefore practically identical, and their Lordships of the Federal Court themselves emphasize this point. In the course of their judgment in dealing with "prejudicial act" under RULE 34(6)(e) they say (p. 48):- It will be observed that the first of these acts is described in precisely the same language as is used to describe the offence of sedition in Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code. We were invited to say that an offence described merely as a ' prejudicial act' in the Defence of India RULEs ought to be regarded differently from an offence described as 'sedition' in the Code, even though the language describing the two things is the same. We cannot accept this argument. Sedition is none the less sedition because it is described by a less offensive name ; and in our opinion the law relating to the offence of sedition as defined in the Code is equally applicable to the prejudicial act defined in the Defence of India RULEs. We do not think that the omission in the RULEs of the three " Explanations " appended to the section of the Code affects the matter. These are added to remove any doubt as to the true meaning of the Legislature ; they do not add or subtract from the section itself ; and the words used in the RULEs ought to be interpreted as if they had been explained in the same way.