BHARGAVA, J.—This is an application in revision by Saiyad Afjal Hussain, Chand Mohammed, Budha and Likhmi Ram against their convictions under sec. 5 of the Essential Services Maintenance Ordinance, 1960. Each of them was sentenced to two months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine to further rigorous imprisonment for one month by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ratangarh. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Churu has upheld the convictions. They were all employees in the Railway Department. The sentence beyond that already undergone by them has been remitted by the orders of the Governor of Rajasthan and they have also been reinstated in their posts. The revision application was pressed only on the ground that the stigma of conviction always remains in case it was not set aside.

2 It is well-known that the employees of the Indian Government in the Essential Services had put forward certain demands, which not having been met, they gave notice to go on strike on a certain date. In order that the threatened strike may not impede the essential services and the normal life of the community, an Ordinance (No. 1 of 1960) known as the Essential Services Maintenance Ordinance, 1960, was promulgated by the President. The charge against the petitioners was that on the night intervening nth and 12th of July, 1960, at about mid-night they instigated other Railway employees to take part in the strike which was illegal and punishable under sec. 5 of the Ordinance. They were arrested by the police and remained in its custody till a challan was submitted against them before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ratangarh, on 12th July, 1960 at about 6 P. M. at his residence The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate came to the court from his residence, held their trial which began at about 7 P. M. and ended at 8-30 P. M. in the conviction of the petitioners. Petitioners are said to have pleaded guilty to the charge on which they were convicted. Against their conviction, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Churu, and alleged that they had not a fair trial inasmuch as it was held after the court hours at such time that they could not procure any legal assistance. It was also alleged that the confessions made by them before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate were not voluntary. It was further alleged that the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate was himself on duty at the railway station when the petitioners were arrested and had personal knowledge of the facts and as such, he should not have himself tried the case. In support of their allegations they filed affidavits in that Court.

3. The learned Addition Sessions Judge called a report from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate regarding the allegations contained in the affidavits. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate admitted in his report that the challan was submitted against the petitioners at his residence at about 6 P. M. and the petitioners were ordered to be taken to the court room by him. He also admitted that the trial concluded about 8-30 P. M. He stated in the report that the petitioners did not make any request to have any legal assistance. He denied that any pressure or undue influence was brought to bear upon the petitioners in order that they might confess their guilt. He explained that the trial was held at night because he had been appointed by the District Magistrate, Churu, as a Duty Magistrate. The learned Additional Sessions Judge did not agree with the contentions of the petitioners and rejected their appeal.

4. In this revision application, the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners are:

(1) that the trial which was held after the usual court hours had the effect of depriving them of legal assistance which right is guaranteed under Article 22 of the Constitution of India. The trial was, therefore, vitiated.

(2) that the Essential Services Maintenance Ordinance, 1960 was a temporary measure and had e

Click Here to Read the rest of this document