B .K.RAY, J. - (1.)The petitioners in these two revisions along with one Alli Kishore Patnaik were tried in G.R. Case No.356 of 1974 by Shri P. Kar, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Berhampur for offences under Rule 43 (5) of the Defence and internal Security of India Rules (hereinafter called the 'Rules'), under Sections 145, 151, 224 and 332, Indian Penal Code and under Section 32 of the Police Act. The trial Court found all the accused persons guilty under Rule 43 (5) of the Rules, under Sections 145 and 151 Indian Penal Code and under Section 32 of the Police Act, convicted them there under and sentenced each of them to pay a fine of Rs. 50/ -, in default to simple imprisonment for ten days for each of the offences under Rule 43 (5) of the Rules, under Section 145, Indian Penal Code and under Section 32 of the Police Act. No separate sentence was passed for the offence under Section 151, Indian Penal Code. All the accused persons were, however, acquitted of the charges under Sections 224 and 332, Indian Penal Code. All the accused persons preferred Criminal Appeal No.246 of 1974 against their order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court before the Sessions Judge, Ganjam. The learned Sessions Judge maintained the order of conviction and sentence passed against all the accused persons under Rule 43 (5) of the Rules and under Section 145, Indian Penal Code and acquitted them of the charges under Section 151, Indian Penal Code and under Section 32 of the Police Act. Against this appellate order of the learned Sessions Judge Jagamohan Sahu and Ram Chandra Naik have preferred Criminal Revision No.233 of 1975 and Bhagaban Sahu, Sudhansu Sekhar Panda and Bidyadhar Jena have preferred Criminal Revision No.298 of 1975. In Criminal Revision No.298 of 1975 a notice of enhancement has been issued against the petitioners calling upon them to show cause as to why the sentence of fine shall not be enhanced to sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three months for each of the offences for which they have been held guilty. As both the revisions have arisen out of one trial, as the evidence is common in both the cases and as the points involved in both of them are the same, the two revisions have been heard together. This judgment will therefore govern both of them.
(2.)THE case of the prosecution may briefly be stated thus: Petitioner Ram Chandra Naik made an application (Ex.18) to the local police at Berhampur for permission to hold a meeting at the park near Ramalingam tank in Berhampur town to discuss matters relating to the arrests of Abhir Padhi and Y.L. Sitaramayya, President and Vice -President respectively of the Trade Union. The Inspector -in -charge of the Berhampur Town Police Station granted the required permission, subject to the condition that no other matter, except those relating to arrests, would be discussed at the meeting. In pursuance to the permission thus granted a meeting was held at the appointed place at 6 -30 p.m. on 10.5.1974. Petitioner Jagamohan Sahu presided over the meeting. In the coure of speeches delivered at the meeting the petitioners appealed to the general public and the Government servants to support the action of the railway employees who had resorted to strike. In the speeches the petitioners also asked or incited the police force to fight against Government like the police personnel of Koraput and of Uttar Pradesh. These speeches were, therefore, in direct violation of the conditions imposed in the permission granted for the meeting and by delivering speeches to the above effect the petitioners committed prejudicial acts within the meaning of the Defence and Internal Security of India Rules. The petitioners thus, while delivering the speeches, formed an unlawful assembly. The authorities, therefore, ordered the petitioners to dissolve the meeting which order was not complied with. On these allegations the Inspector -in -charge of the Berhampur Town Police station drew up a plain paper F.I.R. and directed the Sub -Inspector of Police (P.W. 8) to take up investigation. After investigation the petitioners were charge -sheeted under Sections 143, 145, 151, 224 and 332, Indian Penal Code, under Section 32 of the Police Act and under Rule 43 (5) of the Rules. They were tried, convicted and sentenced as indicated above and hence the two revisions.
The plea of the petitioners during trial was one of complete denial.

(3.)IN support of the prosecution as many as 9 witnesses have been examined and on behalf of the defence only 1 who says that the meeting held was lawful one; that there was no unlawful assembly and that none of the speakers in the meeting incited anybody as alleged by the prosecution.