JAGADISH NARAIN TEWARY Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case Jagadish Narain Tewary was convicted by one of the Honorary, Presidency Magistrates, Calcutta, on 2 December, 1931, under Section 109, I.P. C, read.with Section 62-A, Sub-section (1), Clause (e), Calcutta Police Act, 1866, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 75 or in default, to undergo seven days simple imprisonment. Section 109, I.P.C, provides for punishment of abetment where an offence is committed in consequence of the act of abetment and no express provision is made by the Code for the punishment of such abetment. Section 62-A (1), Calcutta Police Act, 1866, reads as follows: The Commissioner of Police and, subject to the orders o? the Commissioner of Police, every police officer of a rank not inferior to that of Sub-Inspector, may, with a view to securing the public safety or convenience, but not so as to contravene any rule made under the last foregoing section, or the provisions of any license granted under any such rule, give all such directions, either orally or in writing, as he may consider necessary to....

(2.) Then follows a catalogue of matters and then Section 62-A(1)(e) runs thus: Regulate and control music, the beating of drums, tomtoms and other instruments and the blowing or sounding of horns or other noisy instruments, in any street or any public place other than public buildings and the precincts thereof.

(3.) Jagadish Narain Tewary was in fact charged with abetting a man whose name is unknown to commit an offence under Section 62-A(1)(e) by the blowing of a bugle at a public meeting which was held at Haliday Park. It may be assumed for the purposes of the case that Haliday Park is a public place within the meaning of the section. It appears that on the 12 October last year there was a meeting at Haliday Park held at about half-past five in the evening and amongst the audience there were a number of persons described as "volunteers" one of whom from time to time sounded a bugle. Jagadish Narain Tewary was the President (or Chairman) of the meeting. It appears from the evidence that he was elected to that office just before the meeting began. There is no evidence to show that he had any knowledge before hand that a bugle would be blown by anyone in the course of the meeting. A Police Inspector S.N. Mukherji requested the man sounding the bugle not to do so and in making that request he was apparently acting under the powers conferred on police officers under Section 62-A(1). It was proved in the course of the hearing before the learned Presidency Magistrate that both Inspector S.N. Mukherji and another Sub-Inspector made attempts to ascertain the name of the man who was blowing the bugle, but he refused to give his name or disclose his address. No doubt the police officers therefore might have taken the man into custody under the powers conferred on police officers under Section 57, Criminal P.C, but that they did not do so, apparently for the reason that the name and the identity of the President were, known to them and they thought, it better to proceed against him in the matter. Jagadish Narain Tewary was accordingly charged, as I have said, with abetment of the offence committed by the blower of the bugle.