STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. GEORGE FERNANDEZ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State has filed this appeal, being aggrieved by the order acquitting the respondents of the offences under section 143 IPC and section 135 of the Bombay Police Act for forming an unlawful assembly and holding a public meeting in breach of the prohibitory order issued under section 37(3) of the Bombay Police Act by the District Magistrate, Nasik on 8th November, 1980. It was the prosecution case that inspite of the prohibitory order prohibiting holding of public meetings the respondents held a meeting at about 9.15 a.m.... at Ravivar Karanja at Nasik on 14th November, 1980 without obtaining permission and respondent No. 1 addressed the meeting.

(2.) Respondent No. 1 expressed ignorance about ban on meetings. According to him not only no Police Officer told him not to hold the meeting but he was escorted by policemen. Respondent No. 2 stated that he had submitted an application for permission. Respondent Nos. 4 to 8 stated that they were merely spectators. All the respondents contended that the prohibitory order was not duly promulgated.

(3.) The learned trial Magistrate held that respondent Nos. 4 to 8 merely attended the meeting which was held only by respondents 1 to 3. He further held that the prohibitory order issued by the District Magistrate under section 37(3) of Bombay Police Act was not duly publicly promulgated in the manner prescribed by section 163 of the Bombay Police Act and hence the respondents cannot be guilty of the offence under section 135 of the Bombay Police Act for contravention of the said prohibitory order. He also rejected the prosecution case that the respondents formed an unlawful assembly. Consequently he acquitted the respondents of the offences complained of. It is this order of acquittal which is sought to be challenged in this appeal by the State.