EMPEROR Vs. SADASHIV NARAYAN BHALERAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the Government of Bombay against an order made by the First Class Magistrate, Jalgaon City, acquitting the accused Sadashiv Narayan Bhalerao. The accused had been charged under Rule 38(5) of the Defence of India Rules, 1939, for having on January 26, 1943, made, published and distributed copies of a leaflet which contained prejudicial reports within the meaning of Rule 34(7) read with Rule 34(6)(e) and (g) of the Defence of India Rules, 1939.

(2.) The accused admitted having published and distributed copies of the leaflet, but contended that in doing so he had committed no offence. He alleged that he had published the leaflet on behalf of the Hindi Communist Party which had been making efforts to check the activities of Fifth Columnists in the country, to dissuade people from committing acts of sabotage, to prevent antisocial activities such as hoarding of food-grains, and to urge the people to take part in the defence of the country against the Japanese.

(3.) The learned Magistrate after considering the passages in the leaflet, which were objected to by the prosecution, came to the conclusion that there were no words in the leaflet which amounted to incitement to or a suggestion to resort to the use of force or to incitement to public disorder, or which could be regarded as justifying a reasonable anticipation or likelihood of public disorder. He held, following the recent judgment of the Federal Court in Niharendu Dutt Majumdar V/s. The King Emperor [1942] F.C.R. 38 that as there was nothing in the leaflet which would justify the inference that they were distributed by the accused in order to incite the public to disorder and since, according to the judgment of their Lordships of the Federal Court "public disorder, or the reasonable anticipation or likelihood of public disorder, is the gist of the offence, and the acts or words complained of must either incite the disorder, or must be such as to satisfy reasonable men that that is their intention or tendency ", the accused had committed no offence under Rule 38 of the Defence of India Rules. He, therefore, acquitted the accused.