EMPEROR Vs. RAMCHANDRA NARAYAN SHASTRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicants were convicted by the First Class Magistrate, Karwar Town, of offences under Secs.188 and 145, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment for each offence, the sentences to run concurrently. The applicants preferred an appeal to the Sessions Judge, Kanara, against their convictions and sentences. The Sessions Judge set aside the convictions and sentences under Section 188, Indian Penal Code, but confirmed the convictions and sentences under Section 145, Indian Penal Code, and reduced sentences of several of them. The applicants have applied in revision against the order of the Sessions Judge.

(2.) The prosecution against the applicants arose out of a notification promulgated on November 5, 1930, by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sirsi Prant, under Section 42 of the Bombay District Police Act. The Magistrate prohibited in the Municipal area of Honavar for a period of fourteen days from the date of the notification the public utterances of cries, singing of songs, playing of music, delivery of harangues and use of gesture or mimetic representation etc. which might inflame hostility between different classes or incite to the commission of an offence, to any disturbance of the public peace, or to resistance to or contempt of the law or of a lawful authority. This order was duly published by beat of drum and by affixing copies of the notification at important places in the town. The object of the order evidently was to stop certain volunteers of the Indian National Congress from forming processions, singing songs and uttering slogans. On November 6, 1930. after the notification was published, the Congress volunteers declared their intention to defy it by forming a procession of Prabhat Pheris the next day. On the morning of November 7 at about 5 a.m. the accused formed themselves along with others into a procession which started from the Rameshwar temple within the municipal area of Honavar. They shouted political slogans and sang seditious songs. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, the First Class Magistrate and the Sub- Inspector of Police who were all on the spot explained to the precisionists that what they were doing was a violation of the notification of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and that they should cease uttering slogans and singing songs. The crowd, however, paid no heed to the advice of these officers and went on singing songs and uttering slogans. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate thereupon declared the assembly to be an unlawful assembly and ordered the crowd to disperse. The crowd refused to disperse and squatted down on the public ground. The Police Sub-Inspector arrested twenty-six persons including the applicants and the assembly was dispersed thereafter by a lathi charge by the police. The applicants were prosecuted before the First Class Magistrate, Karwar Town, who convicted and sentenced them for offences under Secs.188 and 145, Indian Penal Code. It appears that no complaint in writing was made by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate or any officer superior to him with regard to the offence alleged to be committed under Section 188, Indian Penal Code, as required by Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Sessions Judge in appeal held that this defect in the procedure vitiated the trial so far as the offence under Section 188, Indian Penal Code, was concerned and acquitted the applicants on that charge.

(3.) The applicants now contend that the failure to comply with the provisions of Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code has vitiated the proceedings not only in respect of the trial for an offence under Section 188, Indian Penal Code, but also in respect of the offence under Section 45, Indian Penal Code. Mr. Murdeshwar on behalf of the applicants has contended that the charge framed in respect of Section 145, Indian Penal Code, did not specify what the common object of the alleged unlawful assembly was and the applicants were not aware what prosecution case on this point they were required to meet. Although the common object of the assembly is not set out in the charge the evidence led at the trial clearly showed what the common object according to the prosecution was. The applicants were well aware that they had formed the procession with the deliberate object of defying the lawful order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and that this was the common object of the assembly of which the prosecution complained. No prejudice has accrued, in my opinion, to the accused by the common object of the assembly not having been specified in the charge.