MT LACHMI DEVI Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case, six women were found guilty of an offence under Section 188, I. P.C., and under Section 62-A (4), Calcutta Police Act 4 (B.C.) of 1866, and were sentenced each to simple imprisonment for four months under Section 188 I. P.C., no separate sentence being passed under the Police Act. It appears that the charge against them was that on Sunday 9th November last they were proceeding along a street singing a song and that, in this way they constituted a procession, "they having had no license from the Commissioner of Police to take out this procession. The defence of the accused persons before the Presidency Magistrate was that they were going along singing a Bhajan song, that is to say, they were following one another at some distance in a certain amount of order but not very much and were engaged not in any political manifestation or anything harmful but merely in singing Bhajan songs. I understand that this sort of procession is not unknown and Bhajan song has a sort of religious significance. The view taken by the Presidency Magistrate was, however, that the petitioners were not merely holding a kind of religious procession. He found that, when they were stopped by the police and asked to desist, they not only refused to desist but started shouting political cries, such as, Bande Mataram and Gandhiki Jai; and they having refused to discontinue what they were doing were taken to the thana. Thereafter, they have been tried and convicted as I have already stated.

(2.) The learned advocate for the petitioners at the time of obtaining this rule was asked by the Bench of which I was a member to ascertain whether upon the question of bail these petitioners would be willing to undertake to desist from singing this song or any other kind of song in procession until the question raised,, by the Rule could be determined. They having refused to give this undertaking, no order for bail was made at the time of the issue of the Rule. The petitioners have now been in prison for something under a period of one month.

(3.) At the hearing of the rule, Mr. Basu for the petitioners took four points. First of all, he contended that the order which his clients were convicted of violating was an illegal order not warranted by the enactments under which it purported to have been made, namely, Section 62-A of Act 4 (B.C.) of 1866 and Section 39-A of Act 2 (B.C.) of 1866, sections which are in identical terms. He contended that that order was much wider than was contemplated by these statutes. The order is dated 21 April 1930 and signed by the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta. It is. as follows: To all to whom it may concern. Order under Section 61-A, Bengal Act 4 of 1866 and Section 39-A,. Bengal Act 2 of 1866. Whereas I consider that any procession or public assembly would at the; present time seriously endanger the public peace and public safety, now, therefore, I under the provisions of Section 62-A Clause (4), Bengal Act 4 of 1866 and Section 39-A Clause (4), Bengal Act 2 of 1866 and with the sanction of the Governor-in-Council do hereby prohibit any procession or public assembly within the town and suburbs of Calcutta with effect from the date of this order and until further notice except with the previous permission of the Commissioner of Police.