ARDESHIR PHIROZSHAW MURZBAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts which give rise to this revision application are that on August 1 last a riot took place in the City of Bombay, and the Chief Presidency Magistrate made an order under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code directed against the present applicant, the editor, printer and publisher of the "jam-e-Jamshed" newspaper. THE order consisted of two parts, and I will refer to it in detail in a moment. On August 3, the learned Magistrate cancelled the first part of the order. On August 7, this petition was presented, and on August 9 the learned Magistrate cancelled the second part of the order.

(2.) THE learned Advocate General has argued as preliminary paints, first, that this Court cannot interfere in revision because there is no order to revise, the order having been cancelled. But that, in my opinion, is not a point of any substance. It frequently happens that this Court is called upon to revise an order of conviction after the sentence passed by the convicting Court has expired. It is open to this Court, if it thinks that an order ought never to have been made, to set it aside, although before that action can be taken the order may have ceased to be in operation.

(3.) THEN the operative part of the order directs the applicant to abstain for a period of two months from the date of the service of the order from publishing any news, articles or comments relating to the following matters except such news, articles or comments as have been previously approved of by Mr. E. Iyer, Public Relations Officer to the Government of Bombay, and certified by him to be fit for such publications : (a) The riot which occurred in the City of Bombay on August 1, 1939, or any other riots which have occurred or may occur within the said period of two months aforesaid; (b) Any agitation or protests against the Urban Immoveable Property Tax.