STATE Vs. SAWALRAM GOENKA
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THIS Rule was issued by us suo motu upon a newspaper report to show cause why the bail of Rs. 2,000/- (two thousand rupees) granted to the opposite party Sawal Ram Goenka alias S. R. Goenka should not be cancelled. This Rule was issued, not only upon the opposite party but also upon the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta. It was made returnable today.
(2.) IN showing cause against the Rule Mr. S. Banerjee, learned Counsel for the opposite party, has drawn our attention to various parts of an affidavit by one Ratanlal Periwal affirmed on July 21, 1960. Mr. S. N. Banerji for the State has handed up to us not only the original publications but also the English translations thereof as well as copies of the divers telegrams said to have been dispatched by the opposite party. The case against the opposite party is that he was the author of certain entirely explosive reports which were admitted false. It is also alleged that the opposite party was responsible for disseminating these reports. The opposite party was accordingly arrested under section of the West Bengal Security Act and produced before the learned Additional Presidency Magistrate who granted him bail in the sum of Rs. 2,000/- (two thousand rupees) as aforesaid. It was against this order that we issued the present Rule.
(3.) MR. S. N. Banerji for the State has told us that according to the instructions he has received from the Government, the Government has already been approached by the opposite party and that he has tendered an unqualified apology to the Government. Mr. S. N. Banerji also states that according to his instructions, should the man tender such an apology to the Court also, it will be for the Court to decide what action to take. Mr. S. N. Banerji has further told us that according to his instructions the man may also throw himself at the mercy of the trial court and that in that event the Government might consider the question of withdrawing the case against him. It is obvious that we cannot pay any attention to the instructions which Mr. Banerji has had in this matter. It is a little difficult to believe that any Government could give, such instructions in a matter so serious as this. However, we are not concerned with the policy of the Government but are only concerned with the question whether or not, in the circumstances disclosed, the opposite party's bail should be cancelled. We think upon a consideration of all the matters which have been placed before us that the opposite party's bail should be immediately cancelled. We think that having regard to the allegations he is a menace so long he is at large.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.