EMPEROR Vs. SHANKAR PAPAYYA PADAMSALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision against the conviction of the accused under Rule 56(4) of the Defence of India Rule s, 1939, by the First Class Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Ahmednagar. A revision application against the conviction was dismissed by the Sessions Judge.

(2.) Rule 56 of the Defence of India Rules provides, so far as material, that the Provincial Government may, for the purpose of securing the defence of British India, the public safety, the maintenance of public order or the efficient prosecution of the War, by general or special order, prohibit, restrict or impose conditions upon, the holding or taking part in public processions, meetings or assemblies. Sub-clause (4) is the penal provision. It is to be noticed that the order can restrict the holding or taking part in public processions, meetings or assemblies; it has nothing to do with private processions, meetings or assemblies.

(3.) On August 9, 1942, the Government of Bombay promulgated an order, S.D.V./102, reciting that the Government of Bombay considered it necessary, for the purpose of securing the public safety, the maintenance of public order and the efficient prosecution of the War, to make the following order. The order which is expressed to be made under Rule 56 is divided into two paragraphs. Paragraph (a) provides : No public procession, meeting or assembly shall be held in any place in the Province of Bombay, except with the previous permission in writing of the District Magistrate of the district concerned, or the Commissioner of Police, Bombay, as the case may be. Paragraph (b) provides : No person shall take part in any procession, meeting or assembly in respect of which such permission has not been obtained. Now it seems to me perfectly plain that Sub-clause (b) although it omits the word "public" or "such" before the word "procession", nevertheless applies only to public processions, meetings or assemblies. This is plain from the reference to the obtaining of "such" permission, permission only being necessary in the case of public processions, meetings or assemblies; moreover, as I have pointed out, if the order prohibited the holding of private processions, meetings or assemblies, it would be outside the scope of the rule.