SURENDRA NARAYAN ADHICARY Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, Surendra Narayan Adhicary, has been convicted under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, on a charge of sedition, in that he made manuscript copies of certain seditious writings and circulated them through the post to one Durjodhan Das, a student in the Malda Zilla School. It is conceded, and we have satisfied ourselves, that the writings are seditious. But it has been urged by learned Counsel for the appellant, first, that the appellant did not post or publish the packet in question; secondly, that he did not write the incriminating matter; and, thirdly, that the sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment is too severe, because the seditious writings were intercepted by the Head-master and were not read by the addressee.

(2.) We have examined the evidence, and in our opinion the facts are beyond all reasonable doubt. The Post-master proves that the packet was posted at his office, and he saw the appellant, with whom he was acquainted, at his post-office on a market day, the 13th August 1910 (the date of posting the packet), being such a day. The khas-mahal tahsildar gives similar evidence, and we believe these witnesses. Moreover, it is not necessary to prove the actual fact of posting in a case as this. In Reg. v. Lovett (1839) 9 C. & P. 462 which was a case of seditious libel, it was ruled that if the manuscript of a libel be proved to be in the handwriting of the defendant, and it be also proved to have been printed and published, this is evidence to go to the Jury that it was published by the defendant, although there be no evidence given to shew that the printing and publication was by the direction of the defendant. The Jury found Lovett guilty.

(3.) The substantial question in this case is whether the appellant wrote the manuscript papers. As to this, there is direct evidence and the evidence of comparison of the handwriting with the admitted or proved handwriting of the appellant. There are also certain circumstances connecting the appellant with contents of the packet sent to Durjodhan Das.