KANHAIYALAL DONGARWAL Vs. SUGANSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Kanhayalal Dongarwal is an advocate usually residing at Neemuch and a leading member of the Socialist Party. He was arrested on the 16th. January 1959, in course of a demonstration before the collectorate at Mandsaur, by a number of people calling themselves "satyagrahis" in a movement sponsored by the Socialist Party. The arrest was under Section 151, Criminal Procedure Code as according to the Station house officer Sugansingh (opposite party No. 1), all of them including the petitioner were designing to commit a cognizable offence, namely, forming an unlawful assembly, and committing house trespass into the office of the Collector, without any legitimate business there, and with the intention of causing annoyance to those on duty there. After the arrest, the petitioner was taken in a police lorry to the police station and was on the 17th produced before a magistrate. Later on, he Was proceeded against under Section 107, Criminal Procedure Code; and as things settled down and the so-called satyagraha fizzled out, the proceedings were dropped about a year afterwards.

(2.) THE petitioner filed this application, on the 20th January alleging that there was no reasonable cause or justification for his arrest and the police officers, in particular, Sugansingh opposite party No. 1, and his immediate superior, the Deputy Superintendent of Police -- Opposite Party No. 2 -- were acting mala fide with a view to deter him from defending Mr. Ramchandra Sharma pleader, Neemuch, who had been arrested on the previous day 15th for offering satyagraha, and who had given the petitioner a, power for appearance in the Court. He further alleges, he informed the officers that he was at the Collectorate not to offer satyagraha, but to defend some accused persons, but they paid no heed, and all the same arrested and took him away. This, according to the petitioner, is an act of contempt of Court on the part of the police officers and he has accordingly prayed that they should be committed for this and adequately punished.

(3.) RULE being issued, the opposite party has shown cause and has taken the position that from the petitioner's conduct on that day, and against the background of his earlier activities in this connection, it was clear that he was instigating and encouraging the Satyagrahis, and as such, was party to the design of committing the cognizable offences already mentioned. Therefore, it is contended, the officers were discharging their duty in arresting him under Section 151; they had Ho ulterior purpose or the least intention of obstructing any fair trial.