EMPEROR Vs. GOVIND VENKATESH YALGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for revision of the order, passed by the Cantonment Magistrate, First Class, Belgaum, convicting the petitioner Govind Venkatesh Yalgi of an offence under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code in that he (the petitioner) disobeyed the order duly promulgated by the District Magistrate of Belgaum. The orders in question found by the lower Court to have been disobeyed by the petitioner are two. The first of them was issued by the District Magistrate on the 20 of April last and ran as follows:- Whereas it appears that the above persons or some of them have recently been sending boys and other persons to patrol in front of the liquor shops in Belgaum city and whereas the Police have found it impossible to secure evidence against the persons who have obstructed the public from entering liquor-shops and whereas this picketing if it continues is likely to cause a disturbance now therefore I,B. A. Brendon, District Magistrate, Belgaum, do require each one of you and all. other persons, to forthwith desist from picketing or causing to be picketed the liquor- shops in any part of the Belgaum District and I hereby warn you that any breach of this order will be punishable under Section 188, Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The second order, issued on the 23 of April, was as under:- Whereas it appears that certain persons, not withstanding my order of the 20th Instant prohibiting the picketing of liquor shops, do now sit in front of or near liquor shops in Belgaum city and continually shout Do not drink or words to this effect, and whereas this continual shouting is likely to cause annoyance to persons lawfully employed, now therefore I, B. A. Brendon, District Magistrate Belgaum, do hereby require all persons to abstain from shouting the aforesaid words or other words of the same purport in public places in Belgaum city and Cantonment and I hereby warn all persons that a breach of this order is punishable under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) The jurisdiction of the District Magistrate to issue such orders as the above under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code is not questioned-indeed it was admitted-before us in revision but it is contended that both the orders, as they stand, are illegal, because (it is urged) they do not state, as required by the second para of the section, "the material facts of the case" which led to the necessity for this promulgation. "Whether the material facts are stated in such a way as to amount to substantial compliance with the section must depend on the circumstances of each case. Here each of the orders begins with a brief reference to the circumstances which compelled the District Magistrate to take action under Section 144. The District Magistrate has made the necessity sufficiently clear in the orders in dispute.