The freedom of speech guaranteed in a democratic society does not give citizens the liberty to behave in a manner that results in creating a feeling of disloyalty towards the government or inciting a sense of indiscipline in public servants.

JUDGEMENT

1. The petitioners in these two revisions along with one Alli Kishore Patnaik were tried in G.R. Case No.356 of 1974 by Shri P. Kar, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Berhampur for offences under R.43 (5) of the Defence and internal Security of India Rules (hereinafter called the 'Rules'), under Ss.145, 151, 224 and 332, Indian Penal Code and under S.32 of the Police Act. The trial Court found all the accused persons guilty under R.43 (5) of the Rules, under Ss.145 and 151 Indian Penal Code and under S.32 of the Police Act, convicted them there under and sentenced each of them to pay a fine of Rs.50/-, in default to simple imprisonment for ten days for each of the offences under R.43 (5) of the Rules, under S.145, Indian Penal Code and under S.32 of the Police Act. No separate sentence was passed for the offence under S.151, Indian Penal Code. All the accused persons were, however, acquitted of the charges under Ss.224 and 332, Indian Penal Code. All the accused persons preferred Criminal Appeal No.246 of 1974 against their order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court before the Sessions Judge, Ganjam. The learned Sessions Judge maintained the order of conviction and sentence passed against all the accused persons under R.43 (5) of the Rules and under S.145, Indian Penal Code and acquitted them of the charges under S.151, Indian Penal Code and under S.32 of the Police Act. Against this appellate order of the learned Sessions Judge Jagamohan Sahu and Ram Chandra Naik have preferred Criminal Revision No.233 of 1975 and Bhagaban Sahu, Sudhansu Sekhar Panda and Bidyadhar Jena have preferred Criminal Revision No.298 of 1975. In Criminal Revision No.298 of 1975 a notice of enhancement has been issued against the petitioners calling upon them to show cause as to why the sentence of fine shall not be enhanced to sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three months for each of the offences for which they have been held guilty. As both the revisions have arisen out of one trial, as the evidence is common in both the cases and as the points involved in both of them are the same, the two revisions have been heard together. This judgment will therefore govern both of them.

2. The case of the prosecution may briefly be stated thus: Petitioner Ram Chandra Naik made an application (Ex.18) to the local police at Berhampur for permission to hold a meeting at the park near Ramalingam tank in Berhampur town to discuss matters relating to the arrests of Abhir Padhi and Y.L. Sitaramayya, President and Vice-President respectively of the Trade Union. The Inspector-in-charge of the Berhampur Town Police Station granted the required permission, subject to the condition that no other matter, except those relating to arrests, would be discussed at the meeting. In pursuance to the permission thus granted a meeting was held at the appointed place at 6-30 p.m. on 10-5-1974. Petitioner Jagamohan Sahu presided over the meeting. In the coure of speeches delivered at the meeting the petitioners appealed to the general public and the Government servants to support the action of the railway employees who had resorted to strike. In the speeches the petitioners also asked or incited the police force to fight against Government like the police personnel of Koraput and of Uttar Pradesh. These speeches were, therefore, in direct violation of the conditions imposed in the permission granted for the meeting and by delivering speeches to the above effect the petitioners committed prejudicial acts within the meaning of the Defence and Internal Security of India Rules. The petitioners thus, while delivering the speeches, formed an unlawful assembly. The authorities, therefore, ordered the petitioners to dissolve the meeting which order was not complied with.

On these allegations the Inspector-in-charge of the Berhampur Town Police station drew up a plain paper F.I.R. and directed the Sub-Inspector of Police (P.W. 8) to take up investigation. After investig