The sufficiency of the sanction for the prosecution under specific sections of the Indian Penal Code was the central legal point established in the judgment.

Odgers, J.

1. After stating that the appellant had been convicted under Section 121 of the Penal Code in respect of a speech delivered at a place known as Manjeri on 24-8-21, his Lordship proceeded : Two legal objections have been taken by Mr. Menon, the learned Counsel for the Appellant. It will be convenient to deal with them before I come to discuss the evidence, (1) It is said that charges under Section 121 form one of a class of cases falling under Section 196, Criminal Procedure Code, which provides that the complaint must be made by order of or under authority from the Local Government.

2. Mr. Menon took a preliminary objection before us that the sanction (printed at page 50 of the printed papers) was so defective and insufficient as practically to amount to no sanction at all. Paragraph 1 of the Government Order, dated 3rd May 1922 sanctions the prosecution of the accused for an offence under Section 121, Indian Penal Code, in that he incited and encouraged the Moplahs of Wornad and Walluvanad to take up arms against the British Government and was closely associated with various active rebels before and after the commencement of the Moplah rebellion. Paragraph 2 also sanctions his prosecution under Section 124(A), Indian Penal Code, in respect of five speeches delivered are various places from July to September 1921, extracts of which (or translations of certain passages of which) are set out in the order; and it is as to passages 3, 4 and 5 that the present charge was instituted on the form of the order.

3. Mr. Menon contends that all that was sanctioned was the prosecution under Section 124(A), Indian Penal Code, though he admits that, if paragraph 1 of the order stood alone, evidence could have been given of the speeches in question as incitement and encouragement. The charge is quite specific and in paragraph 6 of the same the effect of the speech which is alleged to have been made by the accused on the 24th August 1921 is set out. No objection was taken in the lower Court.

4. In Queen-Empress v. Bal Gangadhar Tilak (1898) 22 Bom. 112 it was held that; there was no special mode laid down in the Code whereby the order or sanction of Government is to be conveyed to the officer who puts the law in motion, not even on a charge under Section 121. Even under Section 124-A, though the complaint must contain the article complained of to give information to the accused of the charge against him, there is nothing in the Code to show that the written order (if a written order is required) must specify the exact article in respect of which the Complaint is to be made.

5. In a case of our own Court, In re Subramania Siva Chidambaram Pillai v. Emperor (1909) 32 Mad. 3, also a case under Section 124-A, it was held that all that Court had to see was whether the complaint was made by the order or under the authority of Government. It was held there that even if the charge does not set out the speeches alleged to be seditious it would not vitiate the proceedings and that any objection on the ground of such defect ought to be taken as early as possible. For these reasons I am quite clear that this objection must be overruled.

6. The second legal point advanced on behalf of the accused is that certain witnesses whom he desired to summon were not called by the learned Special Judge. These are : (1) the Chief Secretary to Government; (2) Mr. E.C. Smith, I.C.S., Private Secretary to His Excellency the Governor; and (3) Mr. Clements, Superintendent, Central Jail, Coimbatore.

7. The first of these witnesses was required "to produce certain documents i.e., letter written to him on or about 18th February 1922" (which was in fact produced through the Superintendent, Central Jail, Coimbatore) "and the correspondence of the Government of Madras and the Advocate-General on the one side and the District Magistrate on the other side to prove that district authorities arrested me and detained me in the jail till the rebellion was over."

8. Mr. Smit