Back
1954 Supreme(Gau) 48
Manipur High Court
BRIJ NARAIN, J.
Sagolsem Indramani Singh
Versus
State of Manipur
Criminal Appeal No.13 of 1953
Decided On : 26-07-1954
N. Ibotombi Singh, for Appellants; S. Bardhan, Govt. Advocate, for the State.
The prosecution was void for want of sanction under S.196, Criminal P.C., and S.124-A, I.P.C., was ultra vires Art.19(1)(a) and (2) of the Constitution to the extent that it imposed restrictions on exciting mere disaffection or attempts to cause disaffection.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - Ss.124-A and 153-A, I.P.C. - Conviction and sentence set aside - No sanction under S.196, Criminal P.C., obtained - Prosecution void - S.124-A, I.P.C., ultra vires Art.19(1)(a) and (2) of the Constitution - S.153-A, I.P.C., not ultra vires - Pamphlets and resolution not sufficient to establish case against appellants.
Fact of the Case:
Appellants were convicted and sentenced under Ss.124-A and 153-A, I.P.C., for publishing and circulating leaflets and passing a resolution at a public meeting, which were alleged to have excited disaffection towards the Government and promoted feelings of enmity between different classes of citizens. The appellants challenged the conviction on various grounds, including the absence of sanction under S.196, Criminal P.C., the unconstitutionality of S.124-A, I.P.C., and the insufficiency of evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the prosecution was void as no sanction under S.196, Criminal P.C., was obtained before launching the prosecution. The Court further held that S.124-A, I.P.C., was ultra vires Art.19(1)(a) and (2) of the Constitution to the extent that it imposed restrictions on exciting mere disaffection or attempts to cause disaffection, but it was not ultra vires to the extent that it imposed restrictions on bringing the Government into hatred or contempt. The Court also held that S.153-A, I.P.C., was not ultra vires Art.19(1)(a) and (2) of the Constitution. The Court found that the pamphlets and resolution relied upon by the prosecution were not sufficient to establish the case against the appellants.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution was void for want of sanction under S.196, Criminal P.C.? 2. Whether S.124-A, I.P.C., was ultra vires Art.19(1)(a) and (2) of the Constitution? 3. Whether S.153-A, I.P.C., was ultra vires Art.19(1)(a) and (2) of the Constitution? 4. Whether the pamphlets and resolution relied upon by the prosecution were sufficient to establish the case against the appellants?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the prosecution was void as no sanction under S.196, Criminal P.C., was obtained before launching the prosecution. The Court relied on the provisions of S.196, Criminal P.C., which clearly lays down that no prosecution for an offence specified in S.196, Criminal P.C., should be lodged except on a complaint authorised by the Government. 2. The Court held that S.124-A, I.P.C., was ultra vires Art.19(1)(a) and (2) of the Constitution to the extent that it imposed restrictions on exciting mere disaffection or attempts to cause disaffection, but it was not ultra vires to the extent that it imposed restrictions on bringing the Government into hatred or contempt. The Court relied on the amended cl.(2) of Art.19 of the Constitution, which allows the State to make any law imposing reasonable restriction on the exercise of right conferred by cl.(1), sub-cl.(a) of Art.19 of the Constitution "in the interest of the security of the State, public order, incitement to an offence........". 3. The Court held that S.153-A, I.P.C., was not ultra vires Art.19(1)(a) and (2) of the Constitution. The Court relied on the amended cl.(2) of Art.19 of the Constitution, which allows the State to make any law imposing reasonable restriction on the exercise of right conferred by cl.(1), sub-cl.(a) of Art.19 of the Constitution "in the interest of the security of the State, public order, incitement to an offence........". 4. The Court found that the pamphlets and resolution relied upon by the prosecution were not sufficient to establish the case against the appellants. The Court held that the word "Mayang" used in the pamphlets did not define any particular class of people and that the appellants did not intend to excite feelings as between Manipuris and non-Manipuris. The Court also held that the resolution passed at the meeting did not show that the appellants wanted anybody to establish any independent buffer State.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentences imposed on the appellants, and discharged their bail bonds.
Sri Sagolsem Indramani Singh, Sri R.K. Maipak Sana Singh, Sri Yengmaso and Sri Wahengbam Pralhada Singh have brought this appeal against the order of Sri Niladhawaja Singh, Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar and Magistrate First Class, Manipur dated 12-10-1953 sentencing the convict appellants to 6 months rigorous imprisonment each on each of the charges under Ss.124-A and 153-A, I.P.C. But the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. The appellants had also been charged under S.120-B, I.P.C., but they were acquitted under the aforesaid charge.
This appeal should, under the provisions of the Code of Crimnial Procedure, 1898, have been filed in toe Court of Sessions Judge, Manipur, but as the Code of Criminal Procedure has not been enforced in Manipur under the Merged States (Laws) Act, 1949 and Part C States (Laws) Act, 1950, the provisions of Manipur State Courts Act, 1847, are applicable where they are against the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and as under S.15 of the Manipur State Courts Act, 1947, which has been amended by Manipur State Courts (Amendment) Order, 1950, it has been provided that when any person is convicted by a Magistrate of an offence under S.124-A of the Indian Penal Code, the appeal shall lie to the Chief Court (now the Court of Judicial Commissioner, Manipur), the present appeal has been filed under this exception provided in S.15 of the Manipur State Courts Act, 1947, enabling the appellants to come to this Court instead of filing their appeal in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Manipur.
2. The facts of the case are practically admitted that a public meeting was organised at the Pologround, Imphal at 3 p.m. on Sunday 19-4-1953 and the appellants published and circulated among the Manipuri public 3 leaflets Exs.P/A, P/B and P/C and according to the prosecution these leaflets were distributed with a view to exciting disaffection towards the Government established by law in India, and also In order to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between Maniupri and non-Manipuri citizens of the Indian Republic residing in Manipur. The resolution Ex.P/T was passed in this meeting in which about 3,000 people had assembled and according to the prosecution no reasonable demands were put forward by means of this resolution and a threat of launching Satyagraha movement and formation of independent buffer State in Manipur under the U. N. Trusteeship, was held out if the demands mentioned in the resolution were not met within 15 days of the meeting.
The appellant No.4 read out the written speech of the appellant No.3 in the meeting as the latter was suffering from some throat trouble. The speeches of the appellant No. 1 were recorded in a reel and notes were taken from the speeches of the appellants by Sri Gopal Singh P.W.2 vide Ex.P/F. The complaint Ex.P/G was lodged against the appellants by Sri Harendra Kumar Chaudhari, Officer of the Criminal Investigation Department, P.W.1 on 6-5-1953.
On 22-6-1953 the 4 appellants moved a transfer application No. 4 of 1953 in this Court, and the case was transferred from the Court of the District Magistrate, Manipur, to the Court of some other competent Magistrate on 26-6-1953 and so the former got the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, invested with powers to try cases under S.124-A, I.P.C., and then this case was transferred to that Court.
3. Besides Sri Harendra Kumar Chaudhuri and Sri Gopal Singh the procesution examined Nandakishore Singh and Pandit Mani Singh as the former was present in the meeting on 19-4-1953 at the Pologround, Imphal, and the latter searched the Churachand Printing Works premises on 24-4-1953 on the basis of a search warrant Ex.P/H and he recovered the speeches Exs.P/J, P/K and P/L along with the printed leaflets Exs.P/O, P/Q and P/R, vide recovery list Ex.P/S. The leaflets Exs.P/D and P/E were published by the appellants Nos.1, 2 and 3 in the paper "Mother Manipur" on 17th and 19th April 1953.
4. The appellants denied that they ever, in a
