KSHITISH CHANDRA ROY Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the appellant has been convicted of an offence punishable under Section 124- A, I. P. C., and . sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine months together with a fine of Rs. 250 or three further months rigorous imprisonment in default of payment respect of an article published on 12 August 1931. in a called Desher Banee of which he 18 the Editor, Printer and Publisher learned Counsel appearing for the appellant admits that if under the section it is an offence to bring into hatred or content or to excite or attempt to excite Section towards those responsible for the executive government of India generally or of this Province in particular his client is guilty of that offence, but he maintains that those carrying on he executive government of the country " the Government established by law in British India" within the meaning of the section. The meaning of these of these words which occur in the Indian Press Act (1 of 1910) was considered by a special Bench of the Madras High Court in Beasent V/s. Emperor [1916] 39 Mad. 1085where the Court declined to accept the contention that what is meant by them in the Supremacy of the crown and the British connexion as opposed to independence and held that Government includes not the Government of India but also the Local Government. This case was followed by a Full Bench of the Allah- High Court In the matter of the Petition of Sunderlal A.I.R. 1919 All. 91 in which it was held that the phrase "Government established by law in British India" means the established authority which governs the Country and administers its public affairs and includes the representatives to whom the task of government is entrusted.

(2.) In spite of these authorities Mr. Chattterjee has urged that there is one aspect of the matter that has not yet been, put before a Court. He argues that "the Government as established by law in British India" means something different from "the Government" simplicities. By Section 17 of the Code it is enacted that the word "government" denotes the per sons authorized by law to administer executive government in any part of British India. He says that if the term are to be taken as synonymous, not only are the words " as established by law in British India " surplusage but the rights of the subject conferred by Expls. 2 and 3 are illusory as it is not possible to criticize the Government within the limits held to be permissible by Strachey, J., in Queen-Empress V/s. Tilak [1898] 22 Bom. 112 without exciting hatred, contempt or disaffection towards it. He therefore maintains that the hatred, contempt and disaffection of which this section speaks must be hatred, contempt and disaffection towards something other than the Government as defined by Section 17. When asked what that something is ha was at first inclined to say that it was the sovereignty of His Majesty established by the legislation of 1858; when it was pointed out to him that the Government of India and the Local Governments were as much the creation of Parliamentary legislation as the sovereignty of the King-Emperor he modified his position and that it meant, the constitutional structure. He contends therefore that statements however violent concerning the executive acts of the Central or Local Governments are permissible so long as they do not tend to bring hatred or contempt upon the actual framework of the constitution.

(3.) We cannot assent to this proposition; it appears to us that the Government established by law in British India includes the executive power in action and does not mean merely the constitutional framework. It includes the Local Government as well as the Central Government and we see no reason to disagree with the cases in which this has already been held.