CHHOGA Vs. REX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application in revision by Chhoga and three ofcher3 from the order of Mr. D. N. Roy, Sessions Judge, Ajmer-Marwara, Ajmer, dated 3rd June 1949, in appeal maintain, ing their conviction under Section 19, Punjab Public Safety Act (n [2] of 1947) as made applicable to the Province of Ajmer-Merwara and reducing their sentences each to three months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Bs, 200.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution was that the applicants had been served by the District Magistrate with written notices Under section i, Punjab Public Safety Act prohibiting them from attending or taking part in any labour meeting or in any movement subversive of law and order and that they inspite thereof attended a labour meeting and also joined a procession, wherein slogans with a view to creating public disturbance and inciting labourers to action were shouted. The two Courts below relied on the prosecution version of the story, and held that the applicants had not only attended the labour meeting but had also joined a procession, which was subversive of law and order.

(3.) THE main contention of the counsel for the applicants before the Court is that there is nothing in the record of the trial Court to justify the inference that the applicants had joined a procession, which was subversive of law and order, and had also attended a labour meeting. The prosecution have produced no less than five witnesses in support of their version of tha story. The sum total of their evidence clearly goes to show that the applicants were in the procession, wherein slogans 'comrade Bhardwaj ka khoon ka badla khoon se lenge ; police raj khatam karo, sarmayadarika nashbo. laljhandft zindabad?duniya ko mazdooron ek ho', were shouted. The evidence is that of two indepen- dent witnesses and three police witnesses. The applicants in defence have produced two witnesses each to show that they were elsewhere at the time in question. The evidence is that of no independent witnesses. No plea of alibi to the effect had been raised by the applicants, when their statements were recorded by the trial Court. The two Courts below, in the circumstances, have rightly discarded the evidence in defence and have rightly relied on the prosecution version of the story.