STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. ROSHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a State appeal against the acquittal of the accused respondent Roshanlal from the offence under rule 33(5) of the Defence of India Rules (hereinafter 'the Rules') for violating rule 33(3) of the Rules.

(2.) In brief, the case of the prosecution is that Chunilal, Anandkumar etc. residents of Ainet district Udaipur received some threatening letters and when Noor-mohammed S.H.O. Amet (PW 1) received the information, he along with Govind Singh, Head Constable (PW 5) and Sultansingh HC(PW 9) and others went inside the town of Amet and gathered information that the accused respondent Roshanlal along with Shyamlal was follower of Rashtriya Swayam Sewak Sangh (hereinafter called 'the RSS) and another person Laxmilal who was also an accused and has been acquitted was the instructor of that Organisation. An information was also gathered that the accused-respondent and others were seeking cooperation of the residents of Amet for their Organisation and for getting their colleagues released from jail. The accuse respondent was arrested and it it is alleged that from his possession, cyclostyled pamphlet Ex. P. 18 with the caption 'Chingari' was recovered. The accused respondent and two others were tied by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate but after trial, all the accused persons were acquitted. The state filed an application for leave to appeal was only granted against only respondent and it was refused against the other accused persons.

(3.) The law is settled that a case for interference in an order of acquittal recorded by the trial court can only be made out in case the conclusions of the learned trial court on the evidence on record are such which no reasonable man could have arrived at. In other words, if the view of the trial court on the evidence on record is such, that is reasonably possible then generally this court will not interfere in an order of acquittal The accused respondent was charged under rule 33 (5) of the Rules for contravention of Rule 33 (3) of the Rules. Under sub-rule (3) of Rule 33 of the Rules, no person shall (a) manage or assist in managing any Organisation to which rule 33 applies ; (b) promote or assist in permitting meeting of any members of such an organisation or attend any such meeting in any capacity ; (c) publish any notice or advertisement relating to such an organisation ; and (d) invite persons to support such an organisation. It is not in dispute that the RSS was an organisation notified by the Central Government under rule 33 (1) of the Rules and, therefore, any person managing such an organisation or assisting in managing the organisation or promoting or assisting in promoting a meeting or any members of such organisation or attending a meeting in any capacity was liable to be punished under sub rule (5) of Rule 33 of the Rules. Therefore, the only charge against the accused respondent was that he was inviting other persons to support the RSS, an organisation notified under rule 33 (1) of the Rules. It will be pertinent to observe here that the cyclostyle pamphlet Ex. P 18 'Chingari' and the other printed pamphlet Ex. P 19 titled 'Lok Sangharash Samiti' are not notices or advertisements which can be said to be published relating to any meeting of the RSS. and, therefore, apart from the fact that the Judicial Magistrate has not relied upon the recovery of these pamphlets from the possession of the accused respondent, no offence against the accused respondent under rule 33 (5) of the Rules for contravention of rule 33 of the Rules is made out so far as this pamphlet is concerned.