EMPEROR Vs. NARAYAN SHIVRAM BARVE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Narayan Shivram Barve, applies for revision of the order passed by the District Magistrate of Dharwar on the 16 of August, directing under Section 118 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the said Barve do execute a bond with two sureties, himself in a sum of Rs. 300 and each surety in a sum of Rs. 150 for his good behaviour for one year. The ground upon which the order has been passed is that, in the opinion of the District Magistrate, there has been more than an attempt on the part of the petitioner to disseminate seditious matter within the meaning of Section 124, Indian Penal Criminal Application for Revision No. 281 of 1907 Code, by means of two public lectures delivered at Gadag.

(2.) It is admitted that some, if not all, of the expressions which the petitioner is found by the Magistrate to have used in those lectures are seditious within the meaning of the law. What is urged is that these expressions were not used at all by the petitioner but have been put into his mouth by the police witnesses, on whose evidence the District Magistrate has based the order in question. This contention raises a question of fact as to which this Court, acting in revision, is bound to accept the finding of the lower Court unless there is any error of law or procedure vitiating that finding or unless there are any special -circumstances apparent on the record to show that in arriving at its conclusion of fact the lower Court has misapprehended the evidence.

(3.) Here it is argued that there are two errors of law and procedure which vitiate the District Magistrate's finding. These are:-(1) that the petitionerhad no sufficient opportunity given him to instruct his pleaders properly and make his defence by citing his witnesses; and (2) that a number of admissible questions which his pleader desired to put in the cross-examination of the witnesses for the Crown was disallowed.