JUDGMENT

Simpson, A J C - 27 persons, all Hindus, were tried at one trial and were convicted under Section 147 of riot; 6 of them were sentenced to 6 months rigorous imprisonment and 21 to 3 month's rigorous imprisonment. All 27 have appealed. There was a cross case against 14 Mohammadans. They were all convicted under Section 147. Ten of them appealed and their appeals have been rejected by a separate judgment. In the Court the learned Sessions Judge tried the case separately but he wrote only one judgment. It would have been more convenient if he had written two judgments.

2. The story for the prosecution is the Muhammadan version of what occurred. It is that the Hindus wanted to have a procession for the barat of Mahadeoji and to take this procession through the Muhammadan quarter of Sikandrabad. As this was a new thing, the Muhammadans objected to it and negotiations took place. No agreement was reached. The Hindus took their procession into the Mohammadan quarter where they proceeded to attack Raza Khan in his own house and his mother. The Muhammadans came out to protect these people and a fight took place.

3. The defence story was the Hindu version of what took place. It was that some 10 days before the riot the people of Mahawatpur, who were Musalmans, proposed taking their tazias through the village of Sikandrabad. The Hindus of Sikandrabad objected and applied to the authorities to issue orders that the tazias should be buried in Mahawatpur itself. This was some tan days before the riot when the Hindus wanted to take their barat procession through the Muhammadan quarter. Negotiations took place and the Muhammadan leaders agreed that 7 or 8 Hindus only should bring the singhasan from the temple through the Muhammadan quarter and that the big procession should then be formed outside the Muhammadan quartar. In this matter, however, the Muhammadan leaders were treacherous, and, having got the 7 or 8 unarmed Hindus into the middle of the Muhammadan quarter, they called on the inhabitants to attack them, and it was then that the riot took place. The learned Sessions Judge has not believed either of the stories. He has come to the conclusion that the Hindus tried to take their procession, in full force and armed with lathis, through the Muhammadan quarter, and that the Muhammadans were resolved to prevent them and bar the way, and so the riot took place. I accept these findings of fact, and, indeed, counsel for the appellants did not address his arguments as to the question of fact. What he said was that on these findings his clients had not broken the law. They were entitled to take a procession through the streets. Such a right does exist. That was decided as recently as 13th November 1924 by the Privy Council in the case Manzur Hasan v. Muhammad Zaman A.I.R. 1925 P.C.36. In that case the dictum of Turner, C.J., in the case of Patthasaradi v. Chinnakrishnan [1882] 5 Mad. 309 was quoted with approval: "Persons of whatever sect are entitled to conduct religious processions through public streets so that they do not interfere with the ordinary use of such streets by the public and subject to such direction as the Magistrates may lawfully give to prevent obstructions of the thoroughfare or breaches of the public peace."

4. It is contended, however, for the prosecution and this is the view which was taken by the learned Sessions Judge that an assembly which proposes to take out a procession is unlawful if the members of the assembly know that there is another party which is bent on opposing them. Their action then comes under Section 141, Clause (4) "enforcing a right by means of criminal force."

5. The question is not one of fact but one of law. In the case of Beatty v. Gillbanks [1882] 9 Q.B.D. 308, the facts were that the Salvation Army proposed to parade the streets with a hand, flags and banners in a religious procession. A party who were opposed to Salvation Army proposed to obstruct this procession. Two Justices of the P