NATHOO VIJAIRAM GAOLI Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. This is one of those unfortunate cases of misunderstanding between the forces of law and order on the one hand and of perfectly peaceable citizens exercising rights which the State has given them on the other. A party of villagers headed by the accused Nathu had decided on a feast, and, as is usual on such occasions, were looking forward to a convivial evening with a good round of liquor each to warm their hearts: a perfectly human and understandable weakness which is not confined to humble villagers in this land, and moreover one which Government itself countenances, and in a measure, encourages among them. They went to the trouble of obtaining a special pass from Government for the purpose and paid for it like honest men. Two of their members went and fetched the liquor in a bottle and a cansister and brought it back to the village. Just as they were about to hand it over to the expectant gathering assembled for the purpose, a police constable appeared, and from a distance of 25 paces told them to stop, and asked them what they had in their hands. They took no notice but proceeded on their way. The appellate Court states "they took to their heels." This is incorrect. What P.W.1, the constable in question, says is: "The accused Bandu and his companion did not stop but kept on moving".

(2.) THE point does not make much difference, but it does show that the accused acted throughout in a perfectly open and straightforward manner. The constable then went up to them and stopped them in front of the place where their expectant companions were awaiting their liquor. Bandu showed him his pass, and the constable was obviously told that everything was in order. But he could not read and did not believe them; he therefore told Bandu to accompany him to the station where he could get the 'chitthi' read. There was quite naturally a strong protest against this suggestion. The constable then, caught hold of the cansister of liquor and was about to take it away.

(3.) I fully endorse the remarks of the learned Sessions Judge that the prestige of the police must be upheld, but there is another side to the picture. The prestige of Government stands higher than that of its servants. It is even more important that the people of the land should feel they are being dealt with honestly and in good faith, and not that their money is taken for passes on the one hand and their liquor taken away from them with the other. Of course they should have understood the position and should have gone to the station, but as Lord Macnaghten once said in the House of Lords "thirsty people want beer, not explanations." Therefore while entirely endorsing the action of the unfortunate constable and commending him for his courage in doing his duty in the face of an impossibly difficult situation, and while maintaining the conviction, I reduce the sentence of the accused to the fine already imposed, and to the period of imprisonment already undergone. It comes to two months. I consider that enough.