Moti Lal Nehru v. Emperor

Mears, C.J:— On 1st July 1930, Pandit Moti Lal Nehru and Dr. Syed Mahmud were charged before Mr. Bomford, District Magistrate of Allahabad, with having committed offences under Section 17(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, and S. 117, I.P.C Both were convicted on both charges, and each sentenced to six months' simple imprisonment, such sentences to run concurrently. On 3rd July 1930 an application was made to this Court asking that the record might be called for in the exercise of its power of superintendence and revision. The record was called for by an order of this Court and a Bench was appointed. At the request of the Government Advocate the hearing which had been fixed by Kendall, J., for the 14th, was postponed till to-day.

2. The grounds of application are not clearly drafted, and there is no indication as to which of them apply to S. 17(1) or to S. 117. A reference to the record bow-ever shows that Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10 and 11 relate to S. 17, whilst Nos. 7 and 8 apply to S. 117.

3. The learned Government Advocate has informed the Court that he has been instructed by the Local Government to concede that the conviction under Section 17(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, cannot stand. We think that was, in the ??? the proper course to tab Everybody, of course, understands ??? the mistake arose. Everybody in ??? Court of the Magistrate, on the morning of 1st July, knew as a matter of certainty that the Criminal Law Amendment at had been extended to the whole of ??? United Provinces as from 4 o'clock on ??? preceding morning. The actual text the notification was contained in a new paper of standing. Nobody doubted ??? authenticity. Section 78 of the Evidence Act, however indicates with precision how official documents of this nature are to be proved an extract from a newspaper is inadmissible as proof. The failure to produce copy of the Gazette Extraordinary left broken link in the chain of evidence.

4. The statement of Mr. Williamson, ??? he had a telephone conversation, ??? the Chief Secretary as to the extension the Act, should not have been accepted ??? Mr. Bomford or brought upon the record. It was inadmissible in evidence. As ??? Local Government realize, the conviction under S. 17(1) cannot be supported. ??? need not discuss other points which challenged the validity of the convictions.

5. The setting aside of these conviction however is not a result which will be any practical benefit, unless a success attack can be made upon the conviction under S. 117, I.P.C The two special grounds of attack contained in the application, relate to the proof of the that writing of Pandit Moti Lal Nehru a Dr. Syed Mahmud. The point that taken is that neither Mr. Measures ??? Mr. Manohar Singh gave a ??? degree of proof of the handwriting of ??? two gentlemen concerned.

6. The ??? words of grounds Nos. 7 and 8 are ??? the statements “fall short of provision that the witnesses were acquainted ??? the handwritings. Now, when that ??? was given, it was not ohalleng Nobody cross-examined Mr. Measures Inspector Manohar Singh; and ??? having given, according to the evidence which lies before us, sufficient proof comply with the provisions of the ??? that matter cannot be challenged revision.

7. The Government Advocate however pointed out that we should not cont ourselves to the grounds of revision, must satisfy ourselves with the legal ??? propriety of the conviction; and for ??? purpose he has read to us a document, which is on our record and which ??? known as Ex. 12, and an extract from Ex. 2, in which the committee of which ??? Moti Lal Nehru and Dr. Syed ??? were members called upon the ??? publicly to disobey the three ??? He has also read to us the ??? of S. 117, I.P.C and has urged at there is no flaw and no gap in the ??? and that conviction is unsalable. We are of that opinion.

8. The position therefore is that the coaction under Section 17(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, is set aside, and with it set aside the sentence passed both upon ??? Moti Lal Nehru and Dr. Syed ??? The conviction under S. 117, P.C, stands, and the sentences stand.

B.V/R.K

9. Order accordingly.