MOTI LAL NEHRU Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 1 July 1930, Pandit Moti Lal Nehru and Dr. Syed Mahmud were charged before Mr. Bom-ford, District Magistrate of Allahabad, with having committed offences under Section 17 (1), Criminal Law Amendment Act, and Section 117, I. P.C. Both were convicted on both charges, and each sentenced to six months simple imprisonment, such sentences to run concurrently. On 3 July 1930 an application was made to this Court asking that the record might be called for in the exercise of its power of superintendence and revision. The record was called for by an order of this Court and a Bench was appointed. At the request of the Government Advocate the hearing which had been fixed by Kendall, J., for the 14th, was postponed till to-day.

(2.) The grounds of application are not clearly drafted, and there is no indication as to which of them apply to Section 17 (1) or to Section 117. A reference to the record however shows that Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10 and 11 relate to Section 17, whilst Nos. 7 and 8 apply to Section 117.

(3.) The learned Government Advocate has informed the Court that he has been instructed by the Local Government to concede that the conviction under Section 17 (1), Criminal Law Amendment Act, cannot stand. We think that was, in the circumstances, the proper course to take. Everybody, of course, understands how the mistake arose. Everybody in the Court of the Magistrate, on the morning of 1st July knew as a matter of certainty, that the Criminal Law Amendment Act had been extended to the whole of the United Provinces as from 4 o clock on the preceding morning. The actual text of the notification was contained in a newspaper of standing. Nobody doubted its authenticity. Section 78, Evidence Act, however indicates with precision how official documents of this nature are to be proved and an extract from a newspaper is inadmissible as proof. The failure to produce a copy of the Gazette Extraordinary left a broken link in the chain of evidence.