The law punishes the adoption of methods and modes of address intended to cause disaffection towards the established government.

Horwell, J.

1. The appellant, a member of the All-India Congress Socialist Party, has been convicted by the Sessions Judge of Nellore of the offence of having delivered a seditious speech punishable under Section 124-A, Indian Penal Code. The accused had toured throughout the Andhra Desa doing pro-paganda work on behalf of his party; and the speech in question was delivered at Venkatagiri at the end of his tour.

2. Two preliminary objections have been raised with regard to the validity of the prosecution. The first point taken is that there was no proper sanction, in that His Excellency the Governor did not consult his Ministers as he was bound to do before sanctioning the prosecution and, secondly, that the prosecution was not filed in accordance with the order sanctioning the prosecution, in that the Circle Inspector who filed the complaint was not deputed by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, C.I.D., as required by the sanction order, but by the Superintendent, Special Branch, C.I.D. The second point can be briefly disposed of. The second paragraph of the order of the Government is:

The Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Railways and C.I.D., is requested to depute an officer of the Special Branch, C.I.D., of the rank not lower than that of Inspector of Police, to prefer a complaint in the Court of the District Magistrate of Nellore.

3. The letter issued in consequence of this order, Ex. A, is from A.F. Bulkley, Esq., Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Railways and C.I.D., Madras, to M.R.Ry. V. Ayyasami Naidu Avergal, Inspector of Police, Special Branch, C.I.D., Madras. The letter authorises the officer to whom the letter was addressed to prefer a complaint in the Court of the District Magistrate, Nellore, against the accused in respect of the speech delivered by him at Venkatagiri on the 3rd September, 1937. The letter was signed by Mr. Colebrook, the Superintendent, Special Branch, C.I.D., not as such but " for Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Railways and C.I.D." The body of the letter and the words at the bottom, "Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Railways and C.I.D. were typed. The signature of Mr. Colebrook and the word "for" were in ink, which is clear proof that Mr. Colebrook signed not on his own account but as one authorised to sign on behalf of the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Railways and C.I.D. Mr. Bulkley, Deputy Inspector-General of Police, is a touring officer and Mr. Colebrook was the senior officer working in his office. There is therefore no reason to doubt that Mr. Colebrook was authorised to sign such orders.

4. Even if it was Mr. Colebrook and not Mr. Bulkley who deputed Mr. Ayyasami Naidu to file the complaint, I should still be of opinion that the complaint was properly filed. The order of the Government contained merely a request to depute a certain officer of the Special Branch, C.I.D., not below the rank of Inspector, to file the complaint. It is clear from the order that the Government had no intention that only an Inspector of Mr. Bulkleys choice should file the complaint. He was ordered to depute the Inspector because he was the head of the C.I.D. Mr. Colebrook was in charge of the Special Branch of the C.I.D., of which Mr. Ayyasami Naidu was an Inspector. Mr. Jagannadha Das has placed reliance on Reg. v. Vinayak Divakar (1871) 8 Bom. H.C.R. 32 (Crown Cases), in which an order sanctioning prosecution of a highly placed Magistrate directed that the complaint should be filed by a responsible I.C.S. Magistrate specifically named; and it was held in that case that it was clear that the Government intended that that particular I.C.S. genleman should file the complaint and no other, that the Government clearly thought it advisable that this particular gentleman should consider the case against the accused and select such acts of his as he deemed suitable and proper for the subject of a charge, and that it was not the intention of the Government that this power of discrimination