Judgment

AYYANGAR, J.:

This appeal which comes before us by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the Judicial Commissioner of Manipur acquitting the respondent and setting aside the conviction and sentence passed against him by the learned Sessions Judge.

2. This appeal was originally heard before a bench of two Judges but has been directed to be placed before this bench by reason of the learned Counsel for the appellant seeking to question the correctness of the judgment of this Court in the case of Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab, (S) AIR 1956 SC 415 in view of the decision of the English Court of Criminal Appeal in R. v. Co Connelly, 1963-3 All ER 510 and the subsequent decision of this Court in Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 340.

3. The facts giving rise to the appeal are in brief as follows : There was an agitation by certain political parties and groups in Manipur in April, 1960 for establishing responsible Government in the Manipur area. The agitation took the form of picketing of Government offices and the residences of Government servants and blocking roads in order to paralyse the administration. After this form of agitation continued for some time, the District Magistrate of Mknipur promulgated orders under S, 144, Criminal Procedure Code on the morning` of April 25, 1960 banning public meetings and processions and these orders were proclaimed and communicated to the public through loudspeakcrs. Notwithstanding this order, crowds continued to collect and move on the strccts shouting slogans. Biro Singh - the respondent - was said to have been leading this mob. A lathi charge by the police took place but it is stated that because of this the crowd moved a little away and began to pelt stones. The crowd was thereupon directed to disperse, its attention being drawn to the promulgation of the order under S, 144, Criminal Procedure Code and to the fact that the gathering in a public place in violation of the order made it an unlawful asscmbly; but this command was not heeded and the stone-throwing continued. There was firing by the police whiich resulted in injuries to certain persons including some of the police personnel. The first information report in report to the incident and the offences committed during its course was lodged at thc lmphal Police Station at about 7 p.m. that day in which the informant specified the name of the respondent-Bira Singh as the leader of this mob. On this a case was registered under Ss, 1 14 / 149 332/ 342 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code-and S. 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act and a few days later the respondent was arrested. Charges were framed against the respondent who was placed before the Magistrate and the charge sheet stated that the respondent was in the crowd between 3 and 5 p. m. on that day, that the crowd was an unlawful assembly, that he was among those who pelted stones which caused grievous hurt to one person and simple hurt to others and also caused damage to the Inter State Police Wireless Station. Along with the respondent certain others were included as accused but we are now concerned only with the respondent. The learned Sessions Judge convicted all of them of the offences with which they were charged and sentenced them to varying terms of imprisonment but into the details of these it is not necessary to enter.

4. The question of law that arises in this case is by reason of a prior prosecution of the respondent in which he was acquitted. That prosecution was founded on a complaint against him filed on May 12, 1960, under Section 188, Indian Penal Code in connection with his participation as a member of the same crowd in regard to which the charge which is the subject matter of the present proceedings is concerned. In that complaint the District Magistrate alleged that the respondent had disobeyed the order passed under S.144 by himself forming himself along with 2,000 other persons into an unlawful assembly between the hour