RAMANI MOHAN SARKAR Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is the Editor, Printer and Publisher of a Bengali Newspaper called "Swadhinata" has been convicted by the learned Extra Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, under Section 7 (3) of the Bengal Special Powers Ordinance (VI of 1946), read with Section 2, Bangal Ordinance Temporary Enactment Act (I of 1947) and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 150/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. The offence charged and found against him is that in the issue of his paper dated 14-12-1946, he published a prejudicial report which came within Section 2 (3)(a) and Sec. 2(3)(c) of the Ordinance.

(2.) The Ordinance was promulgated on 1 October 1946 and so far as Section 88, Government of India Act, is concerned, it expired on 15-8-1947, But the Legislature, by Bengal Act, I of 1947 which came into force on 16-3-1947, continued the operation of the Ordinance on the footing that it would be treated as an Act of the Provincial Legislature and continue in operation for a farther period of six months. The prosecution in the present case was launched on the 20-4.1947 when the challan was submitted. The challan is signed by a Sub-Inspector of Police and contained a note on the top to the effect that it was to be treated as a report under Section 19 of the Ordinance. In the column headed "charge" it is stated that the accused had committed an offence under Section 7(3) of the Ordinance by editing, printing and publishing in Calcutta an article headed "pooliser chithi" in Bengali in the issue of the daily Newspaper "Swadhinata" for 14-12 1946.

(3.) The defence taken by the petitioners before the learned Magistrate and repeated before me was of a three-fold character; (1) that the proceedings were bad inasmuch as when the prosecution was commenced, the Ordinance had already ceased to operate; (2) that in any event there was no proper report as contemplated by Section 19 (1) of the Ordinance on which the Court could legally take cognizance; and (3) that on a fair construction, the article could not be said to be a prejudicial report within the meaning of the Ordinance but was merely an appeal to the people to assist the police in raising the standard of their service and their morals. The learned Magistrate repelled each one of the defence and convicted and sentenced the petitioner as already stated.