The restrictions imposed by the Act on freedom of speech and expression were found to be reasonable and in the interests of public order, as permitted under Art.19 (2) of the Constitution.

1. This revision petition is filed by the accused who were convicted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate of Alwaye under S.31 (5) of the Travancore-Cochin Public Safety Measures Act Act V of 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. The 2nd accused is the editor & printer of a Malayalam daily called 'Janatha' published from Ernakulam and accused No.1 is the Alwaye correspondent of the paper. In the issue of the paper dated 26th August, 1960 a report sent by the first accused was published on the front page under the caption "Suicide due to police torture. Peoples' rage against the devilish activities of the Alwaye police". The substance of the report is that on 23 81960 one mazdoor by name Parasukutty, who is working in the Alwaye Railway Station, was taken at night to the Alwaye police station and subjected to severe torture, that he was released the next day and that in the afternoon of that day the police again came in search of the mazdoor, that on seeing the police the mazdoor ran in panic followed by the police and being afraid of police and to escape from their clutches the mazdoor jumped in front of a running train, was run over and killed. The prosecution alleged that the allegation contained in the report is absolutely false and baseless and the publication of the report amounts to a 'prejudicial act' and 'prejudicial report' as defined in S.2 and is an offence punishable under S.31 (5) of the Act.

3. That the report was sent by the first accused and that it was published by the second accused in the paper is amply proved and has been admitted by the accused. When questioned under S.342 Cr. P. C., the first accused stated that the report is, in fact, true and the second accused stated that it was published bonafide believing that the report is true. The defence examined witnesses to prove that the report is true. The learned Magistrate on a consideration of the evidence came to the conclusion that it was a false report and would amount to a 'prejudicial report', and convicted the accused under S.31 (5) of the Act. The learned Sessions Judge of Ernakulam on a reappraisal of the evidence, in appeal, came to the same conclusion that the report was false. He negatived the contention of the learned counsel for the defence that S.31 (5) of the Act was ultra vires and confirmed the conviction and sentence. Aggrieved by the order the accused have come up in revision.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that S.31 (5) under which the accused have been convicted is ultra vires and void as the section imposes arbitrary and unreasonable restrictions on the fundamental rights conferred on the petitioners by Art.19 (1) (a) of the Constitution, namely, the freedom of speech and expression and are therefore void under Art.13 (1) of the Constitution. Learned Advocate-General, appearing for the State, on the other hand contends that the legislature can make laws placing reasonable restrictions on the rights of citizens to freedom of speech and expression in the interests of public order and the validity of the impugned Act must bo tested by the provisions of Art.19 (2) of the Constitution. We will, therefore, read the relevant articles. Art.13 reads:

"(1) All laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of this constitution, in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of this Part, shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, be void.

(2) The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this Part and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void.

xxxxx

The impugned Act Act V of 1950 was enacted on 30 3-1950. Clause

(2) of Art.13 provides that any law made by any legislature after the commencement of the Constitution which contravenes any of the fundamental rights included in Part III of the Constitution shall, to the extent of the contravention be void.

5. Now we will go to Art.19. Art.19 reads: