JUDGMENT - 1. This is an appeal by the state of Bombay against an order of acquittal passed by the Second Extra Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad, in Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 1955.

1a. The accused Azijkhan Subedarkhan was found drunk and unconscious and lying on a public road in the Khanpur area in the town of Ahmedabad. On receiving information, the Sub-Inspector of Police Khanpur went to the place where the accused was lying. The accused was searched and a Rampuri knife was found on his person. The same was attached under a panchanama. Thereafter, the accused was charge-sheeted for having committed an offence under Section 135, Bombay Police Act. The accused pleaded not guilty.

Before the trial Court, a copy of the notification dated 16-10-1953 issued by the District Magistrate, Ahmedabad, under Section 37(1), Bombay Police Act, 22 of 1951, was produced and exhibited as Ex. 1-B. The prosecution also led the evidence of Sub-Inspector Vaishnav of the Police Station at Khanpur who deposed to the condition in which the accused was found lying on a public road and the circumstances in which the knife was found on his person.

The learned trial Magistrate held that the accused was found with a Rampuri knife in contravention of the notification under Section 37(1), Bombay Police Act, 1951, and the accused had, therefore, committed an offence punishable under Section 135 of the Act. The learned Magistrate accordingly convicted the accused and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 days and to pay a fine of Rs. 5/-and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two days in addition.

Against his conviction and the sentence passed upon him, the accused preferred an appeal to the Court of Session at Ahmedabad. In appeal, the learned Second Extra Additional Sessions Judge, set aside the conviction and the sentence. In the vie\v of the learned Sessions Judge, there was no proof on the record of the case that the notification relied upon was published in the manner required by Jaw.

The learned Sessions Judge agreed with the view of the learned trial Magistrate that the accused was found in possession of a Rampuri knife, but in his view the accused was not guilty of the offence charged against him under Section 135, Bombay Police Act because it was not established by the prosecution that there had been due publication of the notification under Section 37(1) contravention whereof was charged against the accused. The state has preferred an appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Second Extra Additional Sessions Judge.

2. Section 135, Bombay Police Act provides inter alia penalty for contravention of orders lawfully made under Section 37 and abetment of the disobedience thereof. Section 37, Bombay Police Act confers powers upon the Commissioner of Police and the District Magistrate to prohibit certain acts for prevention of disorder.

Prohibition can be Imposed under Section 37(1) for preservation of public peace or public safety by a notification publicly promulgated or addressed to individuals, and by such notifications carrying or arms, cudgets, swords, spears, bludgeons, guns, knives, sticks or lathis or any other article which is capable of being used for causing physical violence may be prohibited in any town, village or place in the vicinity of such town, village or place. In order that the power reserved to the Commissioner and the District Magistrate under Section 37 may be regarded as lawfully exercised, the notification must be publicly promulgated or addressed to individuals.

In the present case, it is evident from the terms of Ex. 1-B that the notification addressed to the public was issued by the District Magistrate and was duly published in the Government Gazette. There is, however, no evidence that the notification was publicly promulgated as required by Section 37(1), Bombay Police Act. The learned Sessions Judge, was, therefore, in our judgment, right in holding that the accuse

Click Here to Read the rest of this document