EMPEROR Vs. GANGUBAI RAMDAS KHEMJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision made by a third party on behalf of two ladies who were convicted of an offence under Section 17(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1908, and sentenced to four months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100.

(2.) The accused wore charged with what is usually called picketing. They were stationed in front of a cloth shop, which sold foreign cloth, and they were endeavoring to persuade people not to enter the shop and buy foreign cloth. They were not charged under what is called the picketing Ordinance, but, as I have said, they were charged under Section 17 (1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act with assisting the operations of an unlawful association.

(3.) The question whether particular acts amount to assisting the operations of an unlawful association within the meaning of the section must always be one of fact to be determined in the circumstances of each case. There must, I think, be some limitation upon the generality of the words. It may be that an unlawful association includes amongst its operations provisions of a perfectly harmless and even beneficent character, for instance, the restriction of the sale of intoxicating liquor, and it would be, I think, impossible to hold that because the suppression or restriction of the sale of intoxicating liquors was one of the objects of an unlawful association, therefore every body engaged in advocating temperance was assisting those operations, and hence committing an offence under Section 17(1) of the Act.