SWADESH RANJAN DUTTA Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This rule must be discharged and for the following reasons: It appears that the petitioner before us was a member of an association known as the Karimganj Congress Association. The Government of Assam by a notification dated 5 February 1932 declared all associations unlawful within the meaning of Part 2, Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act (14 of 1908) by whatever name the associations might be known or whether they might be known by any distinctive name or not?which had the following objects or any one of them, namely, disobedience of laws and orders of Government, non-payment of taxes, bycott and picketing of liquor and foreign cloth shops?on the ground that they interfered with the administration of law and order and constituted a danger to the public peace. Subsequent to the issue of this notification a meeting was held within the compound of the Karimganj Congress Office or nearabouts, to celebrate what it called the Gandhi day. The petitioner before us made a speech, a translation whereof has been read out to us. He has been convicted under Section 17(2) of the said Act inasmuch as it was found by the Magistrate that he came within the mischief of the words of Section 17(2) of the said Act, namely he was assisting in the management of an unlawful association, or promoting or assisting in promoting a meeting of any such association. It is found by the Sessions Judge that there can be no doubt whatsoever that the petitioner did assist in promoting certain objects of the association which had been specifically mentioned as unlawful. We must take therefore as a fact, that he was concerned with promoting or assisting in the management of an association which had unlawful objects.

(2.) The main question which has been argued before us is that the notification, couched as it was in general terms, was not sufficient having regard to the language of Section 16 of the said Act. If one turns to the words used in Section 15 it is by no means clear that the notification, worded in the manner in which it was done, was not sufficient compliance with the terms of Section 16 read with Section 15. In our opinion, there was sufficient compliance. If once that conclusion is reached, then there is nothing whatsoever in the point which has been raised, namely that the notification itself was insufficient and that therefore the petitioner before us could not be hit by the terms of Section 17(2) of the Act. In our opinion, there is nothing in the first point taken.

(3.) As regards the second point, it is difficult to interfere in favour of the petitioner having regard to the facts found by the learned Sessions Judge. His speech on the ocoasion referred to, may not have been specially violent. The question for decision is whether or not he was assisting in the management of an association the objects of which were unlawful or whether he was promoting a meeting of an association which had unlawful objects. There can be no doubt that he was assisting in the management of an unlawful association; at any rate, there is sufficient evidence that he was assisting in promoting a meeting of an unlawful association. If that is so, then there is very little to be said on behalf of the petitioner. The sentence has already been reduced by the Sessions Judge and we see no reason whatsoever for any further interference. The rule is therefore discharged. The petitioner who is on bail will surrender to his bail bond and serve out the remainder of the sentence imposed on him.