Back
1943 Supreme(Cal) 10
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
In Re: Babu Monotoshan Roy - Appellant
Decided On : 07-06-1943
The conviction under the Defence of India Rules did not imply a defect of character that rendered the pleader unfit to practise.
Headnote:
Defence of India Rules - Conviction of Pleader for Distributing Prejudicial Pamphlets
Fact of the Case:
Mr. Monotoshan Roy, a pleader, was convicted for distributing prejudicial pamphlets and sentenced to two years of rigorous imprisonment, which was later reduced to about a month on appeal. The learned Sessions Judge found that the distribution took place but noted that it was done in a light-hearted manner without any ulterior motive.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the circumstances of the distribution did not imply a defect of character that rendered the pleader unfit to be a pleader, and accordingly discharged the rule.
Issues: Conviction under Sub-rule (5) of Rule 38, Defence of India Rules for distributing prejudicial pamphlets.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the circumstances of the distribution and the absence of additional copies of the documents in the pleader's possession to conclude that the conviction did not imply a defect of character.
Final Decision: The court discharged the rule, indicating that the conviction did not render the pleader unfit to be a pleader.
ORDER
1. The pleader concerned in this case is Mr. Monotoshan Roy, a pleader who practises at Ghatal. He was convicted under Sub-rule (5) of Rule 38, Defence of India Rules, for distributing two pamphlets, which contained matters of a prejudical nature. He was convicted by the trying Magistrate, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years. On appeal to the learned Sessions Judge, the learned Judge upheld his conviction, but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, which was about a month. In the course of his judgment the learned Sessions Judge records this finding that when the presidents of two District Union Boards came to Ghatal for the purpose of arranging distribution of kerosine oil, the pleader concerned handed over to them two copies of printed pamphlets. On this fact the learned Judge came to the finding that there was distribution, but in considering the question of sentence he made the following observation:
The circumstances under which the distribution took place rather go to support the view that the appellant passed on the two documents to P.Ws. 1 and 3 in a light-hearted manner without any ulterior motive of influencing the two presidents. We get from P.W. 1 also that the appellant was in a joking mood and was cutting jokes with one Suran Santra. The appellant's act was undoubtedly foolish in the extreme, but I am inclined to accept his explanation that "in the true spirit" he did not distribute the hand bills.
2. There is another finding of the learned Sessions Judge to this effect:
The fact, however, is that on a search of the appellant's person and house the very next day, no other copies of these documents were found.
3. On these findings, we cannot come to the conclusion that the. conviction of the pleader concerned implies a defect of character which renders him unfit to be a pleader. We accordingly discharge this rule.
