KING-EMPEROR Vs. SADASHIV NARAYAN BHALERAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, dated January 25, 1944, which affirmed an order of Mr. S. D. Adhav, Magistrate of the 1st Class, Jalgaon City, dated June 22, 1943, acquitting the respondent who had been charged under Rule 38 (5) of the Defence of India Rules 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, and having thus contravened Rule 38 (1) (c ).

(2.) THE Defence of India Rules, which were made by the Central Government under Section 2 of the Defence of India Act, 1939 (Act XXXV of 1939)-so far as material-provide as follows: 34.(6) 'prejudicial act' means any act which is intended or is likely (e) 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; (g) to cause fear or alarm to the public or to any section of the public 34.(7) 'prejudicial report' means any report, statement or visible representation, whether true or false, which, or the publishing of which, is, or is an incitement to the commission of, a prejudicial act as defined in this rule; 88. (1) No parson shall, without lawful authority or excuse, (c) make, print, publish or distribute any document containing, or spread by any other means whatsoever, any prejudicial report ; (5) If any person contravenes any of the provisions of this rule, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to live years or with fine or with both.

(3.) ON appeal by the Crown, the decision of the Magistrate was affirmed by the High Court and the appeal was dismissed; the learned Judges held themselves bound by the decision of the Federal Court in Niharendu's case. The charge of having committed a prejudicial act within the meaning of Rule 34 (6) (g) was not pressed and may be disregarded. The learned Judges, at the request of the Crown, certified for the purpose of Section 205 of the Government of India Act, 1935, that the case does not involve a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Government of India Act or any Order in Council made thereunder. Thereafter the Crown obtained special leave to appeal against the decision of the High Court on an undertaking "that no further proceedings in connection with the said charges would be taken against the respondent in any event so long as that undertaking does not prejudice the reality of the appeal. " The respondent has not appeared in the appeal, which has been heard ex parte.