LAWS(PVC)-1944-3-68

EMPEROR Vs. NAMDEO MARGOO KAIKADI

Decided On March 29, 1944
EMPEROR Appellant
V/S
NAMDEO MARGOO KAIKADI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The seven appellants were tried along with nine others by the Sessions Judge of Sholapur with the aid of assessors for criminal conspiracy to do certain acts with intent to impair the efficiency or impede the working of factories, if necessary by use of bombs, for committing a riot, in pursuance of that conspiracy, in the ring-frame department of the mills of the Sholapur Spinning & Weaving Co., commonly known as Old Mills, some of them carrying bombs with them and for causing, in the course of the riot, injuries to several persons.

(2.) The assessors were of opinion that all the accused were not guilty and the learned Judge accepted their opinion as regards accused Nos. 7 to 12 and 14, 15 and 16 and acquitted them, but disagreeing with them he convicted the seven appellants of various offences and passed different sentences on them.

(3.) The prosecution relied upon incidents which took place on three different days. On September 24, 1942, there was a meeting in Sathe's Chawl and again another meeting at Chouda Kaman on September 26 and the conspiracy is said to have been hatched at these meetings. Thereafter in pursuance of that Conspiracy rioting is said to have taken place in the Old Mills on September 27, 1942. The learned Sessions Judge has, after discussing the evidence, come to the conclusion that the holding of the meeting in Sathe's Chawl on September 24, 1942, is not relevant, and as those who were present at that meeting are being separately prosecuted, he declined to express any opinion as to whether any conspiracy was hatched at that meeting. As regards the meeting which is said to have been held at Chouda Kaman on September 26, 1942, it is not alleged that the appellants took part in that meeting. Hence all the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution regarding the meetings in Sathe's Chawl and at the Chouda Kaman is irrelevant so far as the appellants are concerned.