B ISWARUDU Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case one B. Iswarudu of Narsapur has been convicted by the Stationary Sub- Magistrate of Narsapur for an offence under Section 17(2), Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1908, and is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200. On appeal to the Joint Magistrate of Narasapur the fine was reduced to Rs. 100; otherwise the conviction was confirmed. The present revision petition is filed against the appellate judgment of the Joint Magistrate.

(2.) It will be convenient now to set forth the facts of the case which gave rise to this revision petition. By notification dated 4 January 1932 the association known as the Working Committee of the All India Congress Committee was declared an unlawful association under Sub- Section 1, Section 8, Ordinance 4 of 1932. This was published in the Fort Saint George Gazette dated 12 January 1932. On 13 March 1932 the accused in this case at about 6 p.m. is said to have taken part in a demonstration accompanied by a national flag and the singing of political songs. In the course of the demonstration he is said to have visited the streets of Narsapur wherein foreign cloths and British goods are sold, advocated the boycott of British goods and foreign cloth; thereby he was charged with having acted in furtherance of the resolution of the All India Congress Working. Committee which was declared an unlawful association and having therefore committed an offence under Section 17(1), Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1908. Two witnesses were examined for the prosecution, a Police Inspector and a constable. The Police Inspector is the same person who sent the confidential report of the occurrence on the same day, and this report is filed as Ex. A. Fourteen witnesses were examined for the defence. Both the Magistrates have dealt with the de-fence evidence at great length. It is unnecessary to refer to it in detail. Most of it relates to the beating of the accused by the police, a matter which is now irrelevant to the present revision petition.

(3.) The Joint Magistrate in dealing with the case divided the activities of the accused into two parts, namely, what he did up to the arrival of the police and what happened after the arrival of the police. So far as the first part is concerned, the Joint Magistrate refers to the evidence of D. Ws 1, 3, 4 and 13. D.W. 1 is the Government Pleader of Narsapur. D. Ws 3 and 4 are also pleaders. According to their evidence the accused was only carrying placards and was not saying anything at all. The learned Joint Magistrate accepts their evidence and points out that though up to that stage the accused was not guilty of anything objectionable this does not prevent later developments which are unlawful. The second part of the accused's activities relates to what happened after the arrival of the police, which is not touched by the defence witnesses already mentioned. P.W. 1, the Sub Inspector, says that he was carrying a national flag and singing political songs. He also says: 1 saw the accused and five or six non-co-operators holding a demonstration near the house of Ponnapalli Veeraraghavaya Somayajulu advocating the boycott of British goods and foreign cloths.... The accused did all this to assist the operations of the All India Congress Working Committee.