SUMERCHAND Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicants are the same in both the cases and were convicted by the Magistrate under Section 143 read with Section 426 (and 109 CPC, which was really unnecessary) for demonstrations of removing the English writings on certain public sign -boards belonging to Government with a view of writing Hindi legends in their place. This was part of what they called the "Angreji hatao movement" with the slogans "Socialist party zindabad," Doctor Lohia zindabad," "Angreji hatao" "Yeh sarkar nikammi hai". Their convictions relate to two demonstrations for which they had pleaded guilty and had been convicted and sentenced to short terms of imprisonment. The appeals being unsuccessful they have now come in revision.

(2.) AN attempt was made to show that only those who actually tarred the old boards and tried to write some new legends could be convicted and not those who stood by. The test does not consist of these acts only, but either the actual commission, or membership of an assembly of more than five actuated by the same common object. In this context, everybody who was in the assembly and either did these acts or shouted the slogans in particular, "Angreji hatao" would be guilty as the latter would show the privity to the common object.

(3.) THE accused themselves have pleaded guilty to the facts and did not show repentance or readiness to desist. The sentences, if anything, are quite lenient.