( 1 ) THIS is an appln. by seven men, five of whom are barbers and two, dhobis, from their conviction under Section 6, U. P. Removal of Social Disabilities Act, XIV [14] of 1947. It is laid down in section 3 of the Act that no person shall "refuse to render to any person merely on the ground that he belongs to a scheduled caste, any service which such person already renders to other Hindus on the terms on which such service is rendered in the ordinary course of business;" person contravening this provision is liable to be punished under Section 6 with imprisonment and fine. It has been found by the Cts. below that the appcts. refused to shave and wash clothes of chamars. On the passing of the Act, the Chamars served a notice upon the barbers and the dhobis of the village calling upon them to render service to them. When they did not agree, a Panchayat was called by the Chamars; it was attended by the appcts. In the Panchayat the Chamars and other people assembled there, asked the appcts. to render service to the Chamars. The Chamars had brought bundles of clothes to be washed. At first the appcts. agreed to render service and even accepted the bundles of clothes for washing. Then they said that they would reconsider the matter, held consultation with one another at some distance from the Panchayat, returned and told everybody that they had decided not to render service to the Chamars and returned the bundles to them. They were pressed to reconsider that decision but they remained adamant and the Panchayat broke up. It is this refusal which was the subject-matter of their prosecution.

( 2 ) IT was contended that there was no refusal actually to render service to the Chamars and that what the appets. did was to refuse to agree or promise to render service. It was pointed out that no request was made to the appcts. to render service there and then and that the Panchayat was called simply to obtain an agreement from them that henceforth they would start rendering service. When they refused, it amounts to their refusal to agree to render service in future and not refusal to render service there and then. It was pleaded that this was no offence of refusal, or even an attempt to refuse to render service but was, at the most, a threat or preparation to refuse to render service. If it was only a threat or preparation to refuse to render service, undoubtedly, it would not amount to an offence. The evidence, that has been believed by the Cts. below, is that the bundles of clothes were actually offered to the dhobis and that they had refused to accept them. So in the case of the dhobi appcts. there was a refusal actually to render service and not merely a threat of, or preparation for, a refusal. The evidence is that the dhobis accepted the bundles and then refused. It does not matter which dhobi accepted the bundles because the final refusal was by all. By the refusal they undoubtedly committed the offence. But the case of the barbers is different; they were not called upon to shave any of the Chamars there and then; they were simply asked to agree to shave them in future. So their act of refusal was simply a threat or preparation to commit the offence. They had plenty of locus poenitentiae and even after their refusal in the panchayat it was open to them when they were asked actually to shave the Chamars. So no offence was committed by the barbers by their refusal in the Panchayat.

( 3 ) THE reasons given by the appcts. for their refusal were that if they rendered service to the chamars, other Hindus would not accept service from them and they would lose their custom. It was urged that the refusal on this ground is not refusal merely on the ground that the Chamars belong to a scheduled caste. It is true that the appcts. did not say, in so many words, that they were refusing to render service because the Chamars belong to a scheduled caste, but that undoubtedly was the ground, and the only ground, if their refusal; because the