MUFTI FAKKHRUL ISLAM Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision by Mufti Fakhrul Islam against his conviction under Rule 38(1)(a) and (5) read with Rule 34(6)(e) of the Defence of India Rules. The facts that led to the prosecution of the applicant are as follows : With a view to celebrate "Pakistan Day", public meetings were organised and held on 23th March 1941, at numerous places under the auspices of the Muslim League, and one such meeting was held in Mohammad Ali Park in the city of Allahabad. Mufti Fakhrul Islam, the applicant who is a lawyer by profession and is the president of the local Muslim League, delivered a speech at the meeting in the course of which he warmly advocated the Pakistan scheme sponsored by the Muslim League and made certain observations, one. of which is the subject of consideration in the present case.

(2.) A shorthand report of the speech was taken down by a shorthand reporter who was deputed to, and was present at, the meeting and on the basis of that report information was laid before a Magistrate of the first class of Allahabad against the accused on 24 April 1941, with respect to an offence under Rule 38 (1) (a) and (5), Defence of India Rules. Altogether five passages in the speech were made the subject, of charge against the applicant. The trial Magistrate held that four of the passages did not, either singly or taken together, constitute the offence of exciting communal hatred and alarm within the meaning of Rule 34, Sub-rule (6) (f) and (g), Defence of India Rules and he, accordingly, acquitted the applicant with respect to those passages. He, however, held that one of the passages, to be presently quoted, constituted the offence of sedition within the meaning of Rule 38(1) (a) and (5) read with Rule 34, Sub-rule (6)(a), Defence of India Rules, and accordingly convicted the applicant with respect to that passage and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for six months and to a fine of Rs. 200. On appeal the Sessions Judge of Allahabad, maintained the conviction of the applicant, but reduced the sentence to three months simple imprisonment and Rs. 100 fine. The passage that was the subject of the charge of sedition, as reported by the shorthand reporter, runs as follows : But the British, whose policy has all along been to divide and rule, always sided with the Hindus, showed favours to them and encouraged them, for which reason the Hindus always thought against the Muslims, in every way tried to trample over their rights and always encouraged the schemes of shuddhi of which you saw an example during the Congress regime. No source was left untapped in order to show cruelty to the Muslims. For this very reason the Muslims were forced to make Pakistan their goal.

(3.) At the trial the applicant challenged the accuracy of the shorthand reporter's report, and furnished to the Court his own version of this portion of his speech which reads as follows : The strictness and high-handedness practised against the Muslims during the Congress regime are still fresh in the memory of everyone. The British Government whose policy it has been not to let the two big communities in India unite and who have been acting according to the principle divide and rule continued to look on quietly at the Congress high-handedness. The Government continued to show partiality to the Hindus and both of them applauded each other. Had the Governors used the powers granted to them with respect to the minorities, such high- handedness could never have been possible. This encouraged the Hindus and made them bold, while the rights of the Muslims continued to be trampled upon. Schemes, of which you have seen examples during the Congress regime, were enforced during the period of their Government. The Muslims were forced to fix Pakistan as their goal.