- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Ambika Charan De And Others v. Emperor Opposite Party.
Factual and Procedural Background
This application was made by Mr. Ambika Charan De, Joint Secretary of the District Bar Association, Sylhet, on behalf of 23 persons convicted by the Extra Assistant Commissioner, Sylhet, under Sections 145 and 151 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C). The accused were sentenced to various terms of imprisonment ranging from two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 145 to six months rigorous imprisonment under Section 145, with an additional six months under Section 151, all sentences to run concurrently. The accused had formed a procession on 26th January 1932 starting from the Congress Office in Sylhet, which proceeded without obstructing traffic initially. Upon reaching the Government Muslim Hostel, police directed them to take a different route. The processionists then sat down on the public road causing obstruction. The Superintendent of Police and Additional District Magistrate Mr. Mitra arrived, and Mr. Mitra ordered the procession to disperse, considering it likely to cause breach of peace. After five minutes without dispersal, force was used to disperse and arrest the accused. The accused did not participate in their trial or appeal their convictions and sentences.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the petitioner, a third party, is entitled to move the Court in revision despite Section 439(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code precluding revision by a party who could have appealed but did not.
- Whether the conviction under Section 145 of the I.P.C. was supported by evidence and law.
- Whether the Court should interfere with the sentences imposed on the accused in revision proceedings initiated by a third party.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court acknowledged the legal bar under Section 439(5) CrPC against entertaining revision proceedings initiated by a party who could have appealed but chose not to, yet proceeded to consider the matter for the sake of argument. The Court found no fault with the conviction under Section 151 of the I.P.C. Regarding the conviction under Section 145, the Court emphasized that the determination of whether the assembly had an unlawful common object was a question of fact for the Extra Assistant Commissioner. The Commissioner’s finding that the processionists resisted lawful orders was supported by ample evidence, including their conduct in sitting on the road after being ordered to change route and their refusal to disperse when commanded by the Magistrate. The Court found this conclusion correct and justified. On the question of sentence severity, the Court recognized that while it might reduce sentences in revision under exceptional circumstances—especially where the convicted persons face insuperable difficulties in appealing—no such circumstances existed here. The convicted persons were educated, some holding university degrees and practicing law, and had not appealed. Therefore, the Court declined to interfere with the sentences imposed, discharging the Rule.
Holding and Implications
Rule discharged.
The Court’s decision results in the maintenance of both the convictions and sentences imposed by the Extra Assistant Commissioner. The Court reaffirmed the principle that revision will generally not be entertained at the instance of a third party where the convicted persons have failed to exercise their right of appeal. No new precedent was established, and the decision directly affects the parties by upholding the original sentences.
1. This is an application made by one Mr. Ambika Charan De, described as the Joint Secretary of the District Bar Association, Sylhet. He has obtained this Rule on behalf of 23 persons who were tried by the Extra Assistant Commissioner, Sylhet, and convicted of offences puhishable under Ss. 145 and 151, I.P.C They have been sentenced to various terms of imprisonment ranging from two years rigorous imprisonment under S. 145 to six months rigorous imprisonment under S. 145. They have all been in addition sentenced to six months under S. 151, but the Extra Assistant Commissioner directed that in each case the sentences should run concurrently. It appears that the accused persons on 26th January 1932, formed a procession which started from the Congress Office in the town of Sylhet. They are said to have proceeded in such a way that the traffic was not obstructed. When they reached the Government Muslim Hostel, they were met by a party of police officers under the command of the Assistant Superintendent of Police, who directed them to proceed by a route different from that which they were hitherto following. They thereupon sat down on the ground in the public road and, it is said, caused obstruction to the traffic. The Superintendent of Police and the Additional District Magistrate, Mr. Mitra, arrived shortly after this. Mr. Mitra considering that the procession was likely to cause a breach of the public peace commanded it to disperse.
2. It is not suggested that at any stage, Mr. Mitra exceeded the powers which the law gives him. After five minutes as the meeting had failed to disperse, Mr. Mitra directed Mr. Jacques, the Assistant Superintendent of Police to disperse it by force. This Mr. Jacques did and arrested the accused persons. At the trial they refused to take any part in the proceedings or to make any statements. The evidence therefore proving the facts which I have set out was uncontradicted. Moreover the accused have not seen fit to prefer an appeal from their convictions and sentences as they were entitled to do under the law.
3. I will assume however for the purposes of dealing with the case that the petitioner is entitled to move this Court in revision although by reason of the provision of Section 439, sub-Section (5) of the Cr PC, this Court is precluded from entertaining any proceedings by way of revision at the instance of a party who could have appealed but has not done so.
4. First with regard to the convictions the petitioner admits that no exception could be taken to the conviction under S. 151. With regard to the conviction under S. 145 it was a question of fact to be dealt with and decided by the Extra Assistant Commissioner whether the assembly of which the accused persons were admittedly members had an unlawful common object. He has found as a fact that they had the common object of resisting the execution of lawful orders given by the Assistant Superintendent of Police and the Additional District Magistrate. There is ample evidence to justify him in coming to the conclusion. It appears that no general or special notice had been issued under Section 30(2) of the Police Act, 1861. Therefore no exception could be taken to the procession on the ground that no license had been applied for or issued. However the conduct of the I processionists in sitting on the ground when ordered to take a different route and refusing to disperse when called upon to do so, coupled with the fact that the conduct of the accused proved that the procession was animated by hostility to the established Government, amply justified the Extra Assistant Commissoner in finding that from the very outset, or at any rate from the time Mr. Jacques gave directions to the processionists to go by another route, the processionists were determined to disregard and disobey any lawful orders that the police or the Magistrate might give him. Therefore the conclusion to which the Extra Assistant Commissioner has come, has evidence to support it, and speaking for myself, I have no doubt whatever that it is the right one.
5. With regard to the sentences they are undoubtedly heavy, and we are far from saying that it is not possible to imagine circumstances in which this High Court would interfere and reduce a sentence in revision even although the convicted person fails to exercise his right of appeal and does not himself move the Court in: revision, and the application is made by a third party. We can conceive circumstances in which there might be in superable difficulties in the way of the convicted person agitating his grievances in the manner provided by law. No such circumstances exist in this case. All the convicted persons are educated and it is not denied, but on the contrary emphasized, that the ring leaders who have received the heaviest sentences are men of position and that many of them hold University degrees and are practising lawyers. In our opinion in this case we cannot entertain an application for reduction of sentence at the instance of a third party, the convicted persons not having seen fit to appeal. This being so we discharge the Rule.
K.S
6. Rule discharged.
Alert