KRISHNA CHANDRA PANGORIA Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal, by the accused from his conviction by the District Magistrate of Jhansi under Section 124-A. Indian Penal Code. He preferred an appeal to the Sessions Judge of Jhansi which was heard and disposed of by Mr. Plowden who affirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence. Apparently it was overlooked by all concerned that no appeal lay to the Sessions Judge at all. Under Section 408 (c), Criminal Procedure Code when a person is convicted by a Magistrate of an offence under Section 124-A. Indian Penal Code, the appeal shall lie to the High Court and not to the Sessions Court. The order ox the Sessions Judge allowing the appeal and reducing the sentence was therefore without jurisdiction. We accordingly on the revisional side set aside that order. The present appeal was filed from jail beyond time. In view of the circumstances that an their appeal had been preferred under a mistake to the Sessions Court and was allowed by the learned Sessions Judge, we think that there is sufficient cause for extension of time for the filing of this appeal under Section 5, Limitation Act. We accordingly extend the time and treat the appeal as if it has been filed in time. The accused, who is apparently an educated person and has described himself as a journalist, went to village Babina on June 28, 1936, to address a meeting which had been convened there Village Babina apparently lies in the line of the field firing and had to be vacated about the time when there had to be artillery practice. The accused admittedly made a speech on that occasion as the principal speaker at that meeting. Sub-Inspector Lachhman Singh of Babina was present on the occasion and took down notes of his speech and liter made a report to the Superintendent of Police. After the sanction of the Local Government had been obtained, the accused was prosecuted. The District Magistrate found that the notes of the speech taken down by the Sub Inspector were substantially correct and the words amounted to sedition within the meaning of Section 124-A, Indian Penal Code, and accordingly convicted the accused and sentenced him to 18 months rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) In appeal it is first contended before us that inasmuch as the Sub inspector did not know shorthand the notes taken down by him are unreliable and should not be accepted as evidence against the accused. In ordinary cases if a person takes down a speech in long hand there may be a danger of some relevant passages, having been left out and even of the gist not conveying the true impression. But in this particular case the Sub Inspector after taking down the abstract of the speech showed it to two witnesses Sia Ram and Maharaj Singh, who were zamindars of Babina, just after the meeting was over. These witnesses, whose recollection was fresh at the time, were satisfied that this was a correct gist of the speech and actually attested the document. Thus the chance of there being gross errors in the notes was to a considerable extent altogether eliminated. It is not suggested that the Sub-Inspector had any grudge against the accused, nor can it be said that the two witnesses Sia Ram and Maharaj Singh, who are zamindars of Babina had any malice against him. Indeed as the accused came from outside and was apparently a stranger to the village, there could be no question of any personal grievance against him. The accused has not attempted to produce any version of his speech contrary to the one taken down by the Sub- Inspector. The evidence is therefore entirely one-sided. We must in these circumstances accept the finding of the District Magistrate that the Sub-Inspector took down substantially what was stated by the accused and that the notes made by him represent the gist of the relevant portion of the accused's speech.

(3.) We are unable to accept the argument that inasmuch as the speech taken down by the Sub-Inspector is only a short abstract and is not the whole speech in extenso, no conviction should be based upon it. If the portion that was taken down was seditious in character, there is no reason why conviction should not follow. The learned Advocate for the appellant has next urged before us that the whole speech should be read in order to gather the intention of the accused and the purport of his speech. Now in his speech the accused was addressing a meeting of the villagers and was trying to impress upon then that there had been numerous acts of tyranny which could be easily redressed if the villagers were united and were strong. He began by saying that it was a matter of great shame that people ran away on account of the fear of the chaukidar getting Rs. 2-13-0 P. M. and the Darogha getting Rs. 60 P.M. who were their servants and that if they liked they could get them dismissed that very day, and "rather they can rub in the dust the nose of the Collector getting Rs. 2,200 P.M." He then proceeded to: I say I have come to teach you rebellion. We want to turn out the English people from the country and to hand the country over to you.