NEPAL CHANDRA BHATTACHARYA Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This rule was issued on the District Magistrate of the 24-Pargan-nas to show cause why the conviction of the petitioner under Section 153-A, I.P.C., should not be set aside. Petitioner was convicted in respect of a speech made by him on 9 November 1937. The charge ultimately framed against him was in effect that he promoted enmity between employers and employees, who are two different classes of His Majesty's subjects. His speech, fairly construed, is an attack on the capitalist. The gist of it is this: The capitalist is the blood taker, or blood sucker; labour is the blood river. The world has two creeds only, capital and labour. Labour creates : capital takes the lion's share of the product. Their relation is that of man and tiger; the one with the advantage destroys the other. Every per-son in the world has a right to share in its good things. That is the crux of the matter, and there can be no peace until this principle is fought for and established.

(2.) It is clear from this analysis that the speech cannot fairly be said to be an attempt to promote hatred or enmity. The language is not immoderate. The references to force are couched in homely vernacular idiom, the underlying idea clearly being that you get nothing in this world without fighting for it. We are not therefore prepared to hold that on the evidence an attempt to promote hatred or enmity has been made out. In the next place, in order to support a conviction under Section 153-A, Indian Penal Code, it must be shown that capitalists are a class of His Majesty's subjects. If the word "capitalists" is susceptible of accurate definition at all, that definition must be with references to a world system of economics. We are in agreement with Beaumont C.J., when he said in Maniban Liladhar V/s. Em peror (1933) 20 A.I.R. Bom. 65 that: Capitalist is altogether too vague a phrase to denote a definite and ascertainable class so as to come within Section 153-A.

(3.) Literally, the common factor in such a case is accumulated wealth. Economically, the common factors are, possibly, wealth plus investment. Practically, it is impossible to define the limits of any such classification, or to say how any speech would affect any given proportion of its components. In the result this rule must be made absolute. The conviction of the petitioner and the sentence passed on him are set aside. He will be released from jail. Henderson, J.