LAWS(PVC)-1933-5-29

MANABENDRA NATH ROY Vs. EMPEROR

Decided On May 02, 1933
MANABENDRA NATH ROY Appellant
V/S
EMPEROR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Manabendra Nath Roy was tried in the Court of Session at Cawnpore on a charge under Section 121-A, Indian Penal Code. He was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge and sentenced to transportation for 12 years. The charge preferred against him was that on or about 9 May 1923 and before and after, that is to say, from the beginning of 1921 to the end of 1924 he formed a conspiracy and conspired to deprive the King-Emperor of his Sovereignty of British India by means of violent revolution. The case for the prosecution against the appellant is that between the years 1921 and 1924, in co-operation with a number of other persons in India, the appellant who was in Europe, resolved to embark upon an attempt to introduce the doctrine of communism into India, the final objective of the conspirators being to set up a communist state in India a state which would be controlled by the workers and peasants. The institution of such a communist regime was to be preceded by the violent overthrow of the existing constitution in India and the destruction of the sovereignty of the King-Emperor.

(2.) The means by which the appellant and his fellow conspirators attempted to compass their aims was to unite into one organisation the extremist elements in India, revolutionaries, terrorists, the left wing of congress, labour unions, etc. This organisation was to be utilised for the purpose of promoting a revolution in which the masses of peasants and workers were to be the troops and chosen communists, the officers, the masses, were to be won by promises to economic betterment; strikes were to be engineered and if possible riots and the like such as occurred at Chauri Chaura, among the Mohplas and in the Punjab. Revolutionaries and terrorists were also to be enlisted by promises. With this aim in view, the appellant got in touch with his fellow conspirators in India, when exactly, is uncertain, but it is clear that the period of the conspiracy was from 1921 to 1924. During these years the appellant was acting in conjunction with his friends in India in endeavouring to prepare the way for the violent overthrow of the Government of. India. He was unable to come himself to India where he feared arrest. It was therefore necessary that he should make use of the post to get in touch with his fellow conspirators and during the years 1921 to 1923 therefore numerous letters passed between the appellant and his fellow conspirators. This correspondence did not escape the vigilance of the Intelligence Service of the Government of India. Numerous letters from the appellant to his fellow conspirators and from his fellow conspirators to the appellant were intercepted, some were retained by the authorities, others were copied or photographed and re-posted to the addressees.

(3.) By the early part of the year 1923 the Government authorities came to the conclusion that from these letters and other documents, some of which accompanied, these letters, it was clear that the appellant in conjunction with a number of persons in India was engaged in a conspiracy to deprive the King- Emperor of his Sovereignty of British India. The conspirators in India, namely, Nalini Bhushan Das Gupta alias Nalini Kumar Gupta, Mohammad Shaukat Usmani, Muzaffar Ahmad and Shripat Amrit Dange were arrested and charged under Section 121-A, Indian Penal Code. They were tried, convicted and sentenced to four years rigorous imprisonment on 20 May 1924, their convictions and sentences were upheld on appeal. In the year 1923 the appellant was not in India and so no proceedings were taken against him. In the year 1931, the appellant returned to India and he was arrested in Bombay on 21 July of that year on the original warrant of 1924. In August 1931, proceedings were instituted against him under the 1924 complaint. On 24 August 1931 sanction was given by the Government authorising a Deputy Superintendent of the Intelligence Department to file a complaint against the appellant in the Magistrate's Court at Cawnpore. On 27th August 1931 a complaint was filed. On 15 October 1931 the appellant was committed by the Magistrate to Sessions. On 9 January 1932 the appellant was convicted and sentenced to transportation for 12 years.