RAMESHWAR MAHTON Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application in revision is directed against the order of a first class Magistrate at Purulia, convicting the petitioners under Section 126 (2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. They were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100.00each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each. The petitioners preferred an appeal against the conviction and sentence before the Sessions Judge of Manbhum-Singhbhum but the conviction was upheld, although the sentence -was reduced to a fine of Rs. 30.00 each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 13 days.

(2.) The petitioners were proceeded against on the allegation that on the 4th of January, 1952, a public meeting was held at 8 p. m., in front Of the house of petitioner Rameshwar Mahton, in his Kuli, which was attended by about 100 persons. Petitioner No. 2, Baul Chandra Mahton, addressed the meeting and exhorted the people to cast their votes in the Engine Box, the engine being the symbol of the candidate of the Lok Sewak Sangh party. It was at village Bara Urma. The Chowkidar, Tikaram Manjhi (P .W. 3), objected to the meeting as illegal as it would be ft contravention of Clause (1) of Section 126 of the Representation of the People Act. The meeting, however, continued in epite of his protest. Kalipada Mahton (P. W. 1), also attended the meeting on the Invitation of petitioner Rameshwar Mahton It appears that he belonged to the Congress party and he sent a report of the meeting to the president of the Thana Congress Committee. He went to the Sub-Inspector of Police, also, on the 5th January, 1952, with the report and the Sub-Inspector, after investigation, recommended prosecution of the petitioners under Clause (2) of Section 126. It may be stated that the elections for the State Legislature as well as Parliament were going on in the constituency in which Bara Urma lies and, in fact, there was polling booth in that village. If, therefore, it could be established that there was a public meeting at Bara Urma on the 4th of January, 1952, the persons convening, holding and attending the public meeting would be liable to the penalty provided in Clause (2) of that section. It is also admitted that polling did take place at the Bara Urma polling booth on the 4th January, 1952, from 10 A.M. to 4. P. M. and that it was due also to take place on the 5th January, 1952.

(3.) The petitioner denied that there was any meeting. It was pleaded on their behalf that some people residing in the Kuli in front of the house of petitioner No. 1 Rameshwar Mahton gathered in the evening of the 4th January, 1952, for their evening chat and no speech was delivered by anyone in connection with the elections. The whole story of the prosecution was concocted by Kalipada Mahton as the petitioners were working for the candidates set up by the Lok Sewak Sangh, whereas Kalipada Mahton and his father were working for the Congress candidates. They were hostile to Rameshwar Mahton and accordingly made a false report to the President of the Thana Congress Committee and the police with regard to the public meeting having been held at the instance of Rameshwar Mahton, petitioner No. 1. The Courts below, however, on a consideration of the evidence, negatived the plea of the defence and accepted the prosecution story as well-founded.