The offence of conspiracy to overawe the Central or Provincial Govt. by criminal force or show of criminal force under Sec.121A, Penal Code, requires evidence of a show of force that is capable of overawing the Govt.

Shearer, J.

1. The applts. in two of these three appeals are, or were, constables, belonging to the armed police in the districts of Patna, Gaya & Monghyr. Ramanand Tewari, the applt, in the third appeal, was at one time a constable, but was dismissed in 1942. The applts. were prosecuted in consequence of the part taken by them in what has been described as a rebellion, but what may, I think, more accurately be described as a mutiny among certain sections of the police force stationed in five districts of the province, which occurred in the spring of 1947. Although Ramanand Tewari had ceased to be a member of the police force five years previously, he was the President of an assocn. formed by constables & havildars. This assocn. or police union, as it was called, had not then been recognised by the Provincial Govt. the reason, apparently, being that the Provincial Govt. was of opinion that no one should be permitted to be an office-bearer of such an assocn. unless he were a serving member of the police force. On 20-3-1947, a havildar, Kamta Singh, was called to give evidence in the Ct. of Mr. Bishwambhar Chaudhuri, the Sub-divisional Mag. of Gaya. In consequence of some incident which occurred, Mr. Chaudhuri prosecuted this havildar for contempt of Gt. & sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 100. Kamta Singh was unable to pay this fine immediately, & instead of giving him time to pay it, Mr. Chaudhuri committed him to jail. The constable or constables on duty in his Ct. declined to remove the havildar, & thereupon Mr. Chaudhuri came down from the dais & himself removed the havildar to the hajat. Not unnaturally, perhaps, this incident aroused a great deal of indignation among the havildars & constables at Gaya. At one of the meetings, which took place in consequence of it, they decided to go on strike from 23-8-1947, & a telegram communicating the decision was sent by or on behalf of the police Union to the Superintendent of Police.

2. This telegram was despatched at about midday on 21-3-1947. On the day following, Ramanand Tewari arrived in Gaya & held consultations with the leaders of the havildars & constables & also with certain prominent congress men in the town. At a meeting, which was held at 8 p. m. on 23-3-1947, the decision to go on strike was affirmed & at the roll call, which took place at 9 p. m. that night, none of the constables in the police lines attended. At this time the communal situation in the town of Gaya & elsewhere in the province was tense, & largely in consequence of this, a number of constables belonging to the armed police were stationed at various points in the town. These constables abandoned their posts & returned to the lines, taking their arms & ammunition with Shorn. The armed guards over the armoury & over the treasury remained however, at their posts, & on the day following & indeed throughout the period of the strike the treasury was permitted to function. The armed police of two of the three outlying sub-divisions, namely, Jehanabad & Nawada, also went on strike. At Nawada they prevented the sub-treasury from functioning, but at Jehanabad, as at Gaya, the working of the sub-treasury was not interfered with.

3. At about midday on 24-3-1947, a sergeant J. G. Lacey, was sent by the sergeant-major to the armoury to obtain ropes & handcuffs with which to bring under-trial prisoners from the jail to the Ct. of Session. Sargeant Lacey was permitted to open the armoury & take out the handcuffs & ropes, but, when he was about to take them away, he was stopped & was also compelled to hand over the key. On the evening of 25-3-1947, a public meeting was held in the Whitty Park at Gaya, which was addressed by Ramanand Tewari & by certain constables, among them one of these applts. While this meeting was in progress, certain events to which I will refer presently, wore taking place in Patna & in consequence of them, the action which the Provincial Govt. decided to take against Mr. Chaudhuri had no