JONNALAGADDA RAMALINGAYYA Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These criminal revision cases arise out of conviction under Section 18 (1), Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act, 1931. Criminal Revision Cases Nos. 926, 929 and 930 of 1935 are in respect of the judgment of the Sessions Judge of Guntur dismissing the appeals against the order of conviction by Mr. Strathe, District Magistrate of Guntur; and Criminal Revision Cases Nos. 927 and 928 of 1935 relate to convictions by the Third Presidency Magistrate, Egmore, Madras. The petitioners were convicted of the offence of having distributed unauthorized news-sheets in Guntur and Madras respectively and were sentenced on conviction to simple imprisonment for six months. The points arising in these cases have been dealt with in one common argument and can be disposed of in one judgment.

(2.) The petitioners in all these cases were members of a body known as the Labour Protection League; and as regards the Guntur prosecution, one of them is the president, another the secretary and the third the joint secretary of that body there and in Madras the petitioners are members of it. As regards the Guntur cases, the charge was that the petitioners distributed in Guntur two unauthorized news-sheets, namely, pamphlets Nos. 6 and 7 and in the Madras case the same pamphlets were distributed by the Madras petitioners. The questions for consideration are whether these pamphlets are "news-sheets" within the meaning of the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act and whether these pamphlets come within the terms of Section 4 (1) (d) of the Act as amended by the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, namely, as tending directly or indirectly to bring into hatred or contempt the Government established by law in British India or the administration of justice in British India or any class or section of His Majesty's subjects in British India or excite disaffection towards His Majesty or the said Government, the publication and distribution of the pamphlets having been proved by the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The two pamphlets in question are part of a series issued by the Labour Protection League; and of the pamphles, the subject of the charges, namely, Nos. 6 and 7, No. 6 is entitled "Deception practised by the rich and the difficulties they bring upon the poor" and No. 7 is a drama. Before any reference is made to the matters set out in these two pamphlets, we have to consider whether they come within the definition in the Act of "news-sheets". The definition section is Section 2 and in Sub-section (6) "news- sheet" is defined as follows: News-sheet means any document other than a newspaper containing public news or comments on public news or any matter described in Sub-section (1), Section 4.

(3.) It is also necessary to refer to Sub-section (1) as the petitioners contention is that the pamphlets in question fall within the definition of "book" in that sub-section and not within Sub-section (6). Sub-section (1) reads as follows: Book includes every volume, part or division of a volume, pamphlet and leaflet, in any language, and every sheet of music, map, chart or plan separately printed or lithographed.